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

[grumbler]

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

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

[DontSayBanana]

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

You guys are full of crap.  A coaching volunteer or his kid should be held liable for facilities provided by the league?  Procurement of insurance for sporting events?  I'm sorry; to my mind, this is akin to suing a part-time store clerk for a slip-and-fall from a refrigerator that leaked.  If there's a tort, it's not with the volunteer and definitely not with his kid.

[Sheilbh]

I wish this had come up in my Tort exam, I think I could have done a great problem answer. 

In England I don't think there'd be a case.

[alfred russel]

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

You guys are full of crap.  A coaching volunteer or his kid should be held liable for facilities provided by the league?  Procurement of insurance for sporting events?  I'm sorry; to my mind, this is akin to suing a part-time store clerk for a slip-and-fall from a refrigerator that leaked.  If there's a tort, it's not with the volunteer and definitely not with his kid.

My thoughts are that if you are at a baseball game, pay attention and be prepared to protect yourself, or face the consequences.

PUN INTENDED!

[DGuller]

Miller v Jackson [1977] 3 All E.R. 338

The best part?  I just realized I own a paper copy of this case.   I'm reading it now as I type.

Lord Denning really liked cricket.  The first paragraph:

In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone. Nearly every village has its own cricket field where the young men play and the old men watch. In the village of Lintz in County Durham they have their own ground, where they have played these last 70 years. They tend it well. The wicket area is well rolled and mown. The outfield is kept short. It has a good club house for the players and seats for the onlookers. The village team play there on Saturdays and Sundays. They belong to a league, competing with the neighbouring villages. On other evenings after work they practise while the light lasts. Yet now after these 70 years a judge of the High Court has ordered that they must not play there any more. He has issued an injunction to stop them. He has done it at the instance of a newcomer who is no lover of cricket. This newcomer has built, or has had built for him, a house on the edge of the cricket ground which four years ago was a field where cattle grazed. The animals did not mind the cricket. But now this adjoining field has been turned into a housing estate. The newcomer bought one of the houses on the edge of the cricket ground. No doubt the open space was a selling point. Now he complains that when a batsman hits a six the ball has been known to land in his garden or on or near his house. His wife has got so upset about it that they always go out at week-ends. They do not go into the garden when cricket is being played. They say that this is intolerable. So they asked the judge to stop the cricket being played. And the judge, much against his will, has felt that he must order the cricket to be stopped: with the consequence, I suppose, that the Lintz Cricket Club will disappear. The cricket ground will be turned to some other use. I expect for more houses or a factory. The young men will turn to other things instead of cricket. The whole village will be much the poorer. And all this because of a newcomer who has just bought a house there next to the cricket ground.

I wish he liked line breaks as well.

[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.

[Sheilbh]

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.

[Gups]

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.

BB just quoted the opening paragraph. FYI, most Court of Appeal decisions are longer than a paragraph.

[alfred russel]

I wish this had come up in my Tort exam, I think I could have done a great problem answer. 

In England I don't think there'd be a case.

Last year I was at a major league game, which has always had standard language on the tickets that if you get tagged by a bat or ball in the stands that is your problem.

A sharply hit ball was hit near me and moved a couple seats over to try to barehand it (the seats were unoccupied). From what I was told, when the ball hit my hand/wrist, there was a loud pop that could be heard in the section: it definitely smarted for an inning or two, but I wasn't hurt. The team sent someone over a couple times to see if I was hurt, check out my hand, and were very aggressive in trying to get me to fill out a report. It got to be obvious to me that they had some procedures to try to limit their liability: despite their disclaimer on the ticket, I'm sure they are getting successfully sued left and right. Which is a shame, in my view.

[derspiess]

Last year I was at a major league game, which has always had standard language on the tickets that if you get tagged by a bat or ball in the stands that is your problem.

A sharply hit ball was hit near me and moved a couple seats over to try to barehand it (the seats were unoccupied). From what I was told, when the ball hit my hand/wrist, there was a loud pop that could be heard in the section: it definitely smarted for an inning or two, but I wasn't hurt. The team sent someone over a couple times to see if I was hurt, check out my hand, and were very aggressive in trying to get me to fill out a report. It got to be obvious to me that they had some procedures to try to limit their liability: despite their disclaimer on the ticket, I'm sure they are getting successfully sued left and right. Which is a shame, in my view.

Did you get the ball?  I've never gotten a foul ball or home run ball at an MLB game, as many as I've been to

I always tell my son I'll give him the second ball I catch.  First one is mine, and I'll push little kids, old ladies, etc. out of my way to get it.

[alfred russel]

Did you get the ball?  I've never gotten a foul ball or home run ball at an MLB game, as many as I've been to

I always tell my son I'll give him the second ball I catch.  First one is mine, and I'll push little kids, old ladies, etc. out of my way to get it.

I got the ball. I dropped it though and got it off the ground--since it is the only one I'll probably ever have a chance to get, I wish I was able to snag it in the air.

[Gups]

I wish this had come up in my Tort exam, I think I could have done a great problem answer. 

In England I don't think there'd be a case.

Last year I was at a major league game, which has always had standard language on the tickets that if you get tagged by a bat or ball in the stands that is your problem.

A sharply hit ball was hit near me and moved a couple seats over to try to barehand it (the seats were unoccupied). From what I was told, when the ball hit my hand/wrist, there was a loud pop that could be heard in the section: it definitely smarted for an inning or two, but I wasn't hurt. The team sent someone over a couple times to see if I was hurt, check out my hand, and were very aggressive in trying to get me to fill out a report. It got to be obvious to me that they had some procedures to try to limit their liability: despite their disclaimer on the ticket, I'm sure they are getting successfully sued left and right. Which is a shame, in my view.

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.

[derspiess]

I got the ball. I dropped it though and got it off the ground--since it is the only one I'll probably ever have a chance to get, I wish I was able to snag it in the air.

It still counts.  And a scuff-mark just adds character

[DontSayBanana]

My thoughts are that if you are at a baseball game, pay attention and be prepared to protect yourself, or face the consequences.

PUN INTENDED!

Which was my initial reaction.  The other options were more mental masturbation than anything else.  It was more a case of "if they were going to try to bilk money out of the Little League, why wouldn't they try this more feasible way?"

[alfred russel]

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.