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

[garbon]

I'm sure they are in the pages of legalese you are supposed to review before you buy a ticket online, or posted outside the ticket booth at the stadium.

Could a person acting reasonably be expected to read all that?

[derspiess]

The terms and conditions under which you buy a ticket shoudl surely be made clear to you before you buy it, rather than on the ticket itself. I think Denning had a decision on this as well regarding liability in a car park.

I'm sure they are in the pages of legalese you are supposed to review before you buy a ticket online, or posted outside the ticket booth at the stadium.

But in the case of a youth game, you can usually just walk up and watch.

I'll look the next time I'm at the Reds ticket booth, but I think they have a fairly simple to read sign posted above the window.

[alfred russel]

I'm sure they are in the pages of legalese you are supposed to review before you buy a ticket online, or posted outside the ticket booth at the stadium.

Could a person acting reasonably be expected to read all that?

I can't remember the specific details, but a few years ago the courts ruled that the boilerplate legal language at the bottom of emails could not protect accounting firms from certain types of legal liability--the disclaimer needed to be highlighted to their clients in order for protection to be effective. At least one major firm's solution: put that section in large type and bold it within the boilerplate.

[frunk]

If you take away the potential physical danger of a ball flying into the stands then nobody will be left awake by the end of the game.  It's a vital part of the American pastime.

[Admiral Yi]

Could a person acting reasonably be expected to read all that?

A person acting reasonably would be expected to know that balls go into the stands without reading any of it.

[crazy canuck]

Uhm I don't understand the outrage about it. It's not criminal prosecution but a civil lawsuit - it's pretty normal for minors to be sued (or more specifically, their parents being sued) for damage caused by the minors. Why should the woman be required to pay her medical expenses out of her own pocket only because she was harmed by a kid?

See?  Lawyers have to die.

Why would you make assumptions about any general populations from anything Marti says? Besides, wouldnt Marti first have to be a lawyer before condemning all lawyers for what he says?

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think CC has posted a word in this thread that is correct.

Tinker with the time stamps and we have grumbler admitting that Marty's a lawyer. 

[garbon]

I don't think CC has posted a word in this thread that is correct.

Tinker with the time stamps and we have grumbler admitting that Marty's a lawyer. 

I don't think that's what it'd mean if CC's questions were wrong.

Besides, you'd also have to willfully misunderstand who grumbler was talking about.

[Josquius]

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.

The decision seems to be to give
compensation to the woman
for cricket balls that go into her garden.

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_Jackson

The Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on 6 April 1977. Geoffrey Lane and Cumming-Bruce LJJ held that there was a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiffs and their property from the cricket balls and the club could not prevent accidents from happening. The club was guilty of negligence "on each occasion when a ball comes over the fence and causes damage to the plaintiffs".[2] The repeated interference with their property was also held to be an actionable nuisance. Following Sturges v. Bridgman, the fact that the Millers had "come to the nuisance" was no defence. On that basis, the Millers were awarded damages. Lord Denning MR dissented from the finding of negligence and nuisance, holding that "the public interest should prevail over the private interest".[3] However, on the basis that the club had agreed to pay for any damage, Lord Denning was "content that there should be an award of £400 to cover any past or future damage".[3]

Geoffrey Lane LJ would have upheld the injunction. However, Lord Denning MR and Cumming-Bruce LJ held that damages were a sufficient remedy, holding that the discretionary equitable remedy of an injunction was not necessary. In the words of Cumming-Bruce LJ, the court had to "strike a fair balance between the right of the plaintiffs to have quiet enjoyment of their house and garden without exposure to cricket balls occasionally falling like thunderbolts from the heavens, and the opportunity of the inhabitants of the village in which they live to continue to enjoy the manly sport which constitutes a summer recreation for adults and young persons".[4] The Millers had bought a house with the benefit of an open space adjacent to their land, and had to accept that the innocent and lawful use of the open land could restrict the enjoyment of their garden.

It is notable that the court did not hold that holding cricket matches on the ground was negligent, per se; rather, there were separate negligent acts each time a ball left the ground. It is not clear why attempting to hit a ball for six should be negligent, since it is one of the objects of playing cricket.

[Eddie Teach]

I don't think that's what it'd mean if CC's questions were wrong.

Besides, you'd also have to willfully misunderstand who grumbler was talking about.

CC= Chocolate City = CDM. Duh.

[Neil]

Uhm I don't understand the outrage about it. It's not criminal prosecution but a civil lawsuit - it's pretty normal for minors to be sued (or more specifically, their parents being sued) for damage caused by the minors. Why should the woman be required to pay her medical expenses out of her own pocket only because she was harmed by a kid?

See?  Lawyers have to die.

Why would you make assumptions about any general populations from anything Marti says? Besides, wouldnt Marti first have to be a lawyer before condemning all lawyers for what he says?

You make a good point.  I'll take your sober second thought into account.