Woman sues Little League player after being hit in face with ball

[Barrister]

I do love having my own personal copy of the All ERs (up to 1981).

[Josquius]

hey, thats my town.
Sounds like a pretty stupid decision was made there.

[Neil]

hey, thats my town.
Sounds like a pretty stupid decision was made there.

It seems reasonable.  Faggots who hate people playing cricket should kill themselves.

[DontSayBanana]

BTW, I'm inferring (yes, I realize that's dangerous ground where torts are concerned), but one of the comments in the article suggests the defendants' theory is that the kid was practicing catching with a partner and overshot a throw to the partner which ended up hitting the woman.  Since fastballs are a part of the sport, that seems reasonable enough to me- I'm with AR on the risk assumption theory.  If balls always hit their target exactly, there would be no game; ignoring the risk of a stray ball doesn't pass the reasonable man standard, IMO.

[fhdz]

She probably ought to be hit with more baseballs, not fewer.

[Richard Hakluyt]

It is a frequent whine BB, someone buys a house adjoining a village cricket ground and then throws a fit when a window gets broken. Which is insanely counter-productive of course as all the villagers instantly hate the whinging incomer.

[Ideologue]

She probably ought to be hit with more baseballs, not fewer.

Classy.

[Martinus]

The bottomline is that there is damage done at a conflict of two legal interests here, so whether the lawsuit is justified or not, it is certainly not frivolous and merits a trial.

[Admiral Yi]

Kid must have a pretty good arm if he can break the bitch's face with a wild throw back to the pitcher.

[Gups]

Love Denning's prose.

His judgements were sometimes a bit dubious but always so readable.

[Sheilbh]

I wish I could remember the name - there's a Lord Denning decision which deals with an errant cricket ball, where he waxes eloquent on the beauty of cricket (and of course finds no negligence for an errant cricket ball)...

Miller v Jones, which I think is to do with nuisance and now considered a bit dodgy.

There's another judgement about a woman being hit by a cricket ball, Bolton v Stone, which I also think is Denning...

[Ed Anger]

Kid must have a pretty good arm if he can break the bitch's face with a wild throw back to the pitcher.

You seen the size of kids these days? Holy shit. The hormones in the milk are producing a breed of super-child.

[sbr]

We don't play cricket but have similar problems with the Portland airport and auto race track.  People buy houses near them, presumably cheap because of the noise then bitch about the noise.

That's probably everywhere though.

[DontSayBanana]

The bottomline is that there is damage done at a conflict of two legal interests here, so whether the lawsuit is justified or not, it is certainly not frivolous and merits a trial.

Again, I'm taking it that the kid didn't intentionally lob the ball in the woman's face, but I can't think of any way the kid and his parents should be held liable for this.  If you discount the "intention" to throw the ball in the woman's face (and if she was injured that badly, why isn't there mention of a police report for assault and battery?), I see potential for two torts, and both fall squarely on the Little League:

1) Assuming a reasonable assumption of risk, like me and AR, accidents should be considered foreseeable, and should be insured by the Little League.  The Little League inadequately insured the event (and honestly, what event DOESN'T have some kind of bulk insurance on the spectators? This seems like a slam dunk to me), and should be held liable for such.

2) Assuming a reasonable assumption of spectator safety (which I don't- it's a physical sporting event, and there's going to ALWAYS be some risk- see hockey players that break through the glass), the Little League should be held liable for inadequate protective facilities.  Again, the kids' parents are volunteers and shouldn't be held liable for the facilities that are most likely provided by the Little League or a third-party property owner; either way, since it's a Little League game, Little League should have oversight responsibility to make sure the facilities are safe.

[alfred russel]

I don't endorse what CC is writing. He is on his own.