How bout the Dodgers step up...

On Jun 2, 10:13 am, Tarkus <karnev....DeleteThis@atlantabraves.net> wrote:

> > We are a greedy, materialistic, lawsuit-happy society.  The line has to
> > be drawn somewhere, and when you use your ticket you agree to the line
> > the team and/or MLB has drawn in the sand.  Changing the rules after the
> > fact does not and will not happen.
>
> Your ticket is irrelevant in Canada, and probably in the U.S.:

And when, exactly, did we start taking Canada seriously?

s/
 >> Stay informed about: How bout the Dodgers step up... 

"Sam Hutcheson" <samh.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:6a14de04-b598-4f70-855f-94dd5c1fc668@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 2, 10:13 am, Tarkus <karnev....RemoveThis@atlantabraves.net> wrote:

> > We are a greedy, materialistic, lawsuit-happy society. The line has to
> > be drawn somewhere, and when you use your ticket you agree to the line
> > the team and/or MLB has drawn in the sand. Changing the rules after the
> > fact does not and will not happen.
>
> Your ticket is irrelevant in Canada, and probably in the U.S.:

And when, exactly, did we start taking Canada seriously?

Triple: It doesn't work here either. This fellow just can't admit he lost
the argument.
 >> Stay informed about: How bout the Dodgers step up... 

On Jun 2, 2:18 pm, "Triple" <rhag... RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Sam Hutcheson" <s... RemoveThis @bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:6a14de04-b598-4f70-855f-94dd5c1fc668@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 2, 10:13 am, Tarkus <karnev... RemoveThis @atlantabraves.net> wrote:
>
> > > We are a greedy, materialistic, lawsuit-happy society. The line has to
> > > be drawn somewhere, and when you use your ticket you agree to the line
> > > the team and/or MLB has drawn in the sand. Changing the rules after the
> > > fact does not and will not happen.
>
> > Your ticket is irrelevant in Canada, and probably in the U.S.:
>
> And when, exactly, did we start taking Canada seriously?
>
> Triple: It doesn't work here either. This fellow just can't admit he lost
> the argument.

Because he hasn't. At best Tarkus did your homework for you and
raised a doubt as to the validity of ticket disclaimers. Even then he
was smart enough to note that any lawsuit against a team or the league
for objects entering the stands would almost certainly be ruled
against due to assumed risk. When you go to a baseball game you KNOW
there is a slight risk of injury due to balls and bats entering the
stands. What a potential plaintiff would have to do is to show
negilgence or malice on MLB or the franchise's part. Your repetitious
harping about maple bats hardly qualifies in that regard.

So, to sum up, Terry has made a worthwhile counterpoint, although it's
based on Canadian law. You have failed to make any sort of counter
argument whatsoever, relying instead on feel-good notions that we
should all just take care of one another regardless and the Dodgers
should "step up."

Sam: 1
Terry: 1
You: 0

s/
 >> Stay informed about: How bout the Dodgers step up... 

Sam Hutcheson wrote:
> On Jun 2, 10:13 am, Tarkus <karnev....TakeThisOut@atlantabraves.net> wrote:
>
>>> We are a greedy, materialistic, lawsuit-happy society. The line has to
>>> be drawn somewhere, and when you use your ticket you agree to the line
>>> the team and/or MLB has drawn in the sand. Changing the rules after the
>>> fact does not and will not happen.
>> Your ticket is irrelevant in Canada, and probably in the U.S.:
>
> And when, exactly, did we start taking Canada seriously?

When the Expos became the first Canadian MLB team?

--
Now Playing: Jon Anderson - Hear It

Braves fans @ Last.fm: http://www.last.fm/group/Atlanta%2BBraves
 >> Stay informed about: How bout the Dodgers step up... 

"Sam Hutcheson" <samh.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:aa3096ae-2772-4459-92c8-f34bd946fb50@i18g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 2, 2:18 pm, "Triple" <rhag....TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Sam Hutcheson" <s....TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:6a14de04-b598-4f70-855f-94dd5c1fc668@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 2, 10:13 am, Tarkus <karnev....TakeThisOut@atlantabraves.net> wrote:
>
> > > We are a greedy, materialistic, lawsuit-happy society. The line has to
> > > be drawn somewhere, and when you use your ticket you agree to the line
> > > the team and/or MLB has drawn in the sand. Changing the rules after
> > > the
> > > fact does not and will not happen.
>
> > Your ticket is irrelevant in Canada, and probably in the U.S.:
>
> And when, exactly, did we start taking Canada seriously?
>
> Triple: It doesn't work here either. This fellow just can't admit he lost
> the argument.

Because he hasn't. At best Tarkus did your homework for you and
raised a doubt as to the validity of ticket disclaimers. Even then he
was smart enough to note that any lawsuit against a team or the league
for objects entering the stands would almost certainly be ruled
against due to assumed risk. When you go to a baseball game you KNOW
there is a slight risk of injury due to balls and bats entering the
stands. What a potential plaintiff would have to do is to show
negilgence or malice on MLB or the franchise's part. Your repetitious
harping about maple bats hardly qualifies in that regard.

So, to sum up, Terry has made a worthwhile counterpoint, although it's
based on Canadian law. You have failed to make any sort of counter
argument whatsoever, relying instead on feel-good notions that we
should all just take care of one another regardless and the Dodgers
should "step up."

Sam: 1
Terry: 1
You: 0

Roberts Reply:

People in this discussion being civilized.

Terry and Robert
Sam Zero


The articles clearly show MLB knows the bats are a problem. When someone
gets hurt badly by one of those, the articles which quote MLB people as
stating they are dangerous and someone will get hurt will be will be brought
up. A disclaimer on the ticket is not going to hold against negligence.

Let's say some hot head pitcher gets mad after he is taken out of a game and
fires a ball and full strength into the front row. The hypothetical guy that
gets taken out would still sue and the disclaimer about balls thrown into
the stands would not hold. It may hold against the stadium owners because
they have no control over the pitcher. The difference here is a matter of
degree on one end (an inherently dangerous act of throwing the ball at fans
in that manner vs a 'part of the game' bat break). However, it shows the
disclaimer will not hold in all cases. In this case MLB and the PA has
control over maple bats, a defective product. They will get nailed sooner or
later.

Skydivers assume risks too but if it is found the skydiving company failed
to maintain and use safe equipment, any disclaimer signed by the jumper is
not going to hold.

You know those disclaimers you sign in the emergency room? Those are tossed
out regularly. A disclaimer is not a "can't sue me card" in some board game.
 >> Stay informed about: How bout the Dodgers step up... 

On Jun 2, 4:09 pm, t....TakeThisOut@toast.net wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:18:15 -0700, "Triple" <rhag....TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >Let's say some hot head pitcher gets mad after he is taken out of a game and
> >fires a ball and full strength into the front row. The hypothetical guy that
> >gets taken out would still sue and the disclaimer about balls thrown into
> >the stands would not hold. It may hold against the stadium owners because
> >they have no control over the pitcher. The difference here is a matter of
> >degree on one end (an inherently dangerous act of throwing the ball at fans
> >in that manner vs a 'part of the game' bat break). However, it shows the
> >disclaimer will not hold in all cases. In this case  MLB and the PA has
> >control over maple bats, a defective product. They will get nailed sooner or
> >later.
>
> It has happened.  Recall it from a class on torts....many years ago.
>
> If I still had access to Lexis/Westlaw, I'd try and find the case on point
> where a MLB pitcher deliberately threw a fastball at a heckling
> fan...believe the Red Sox were involved.

Didn't Joey Belle throw a ball at a fan once?

s/
 >> Stay informed about: How bout the Dodgers step up... 

On Jun 2, 6:52 pm, "Jeremy Chapman" <jchapm... RemoveThis @triad.rr.com> wrote:
> "Sam Hutcheson" <s... RemoveThis @bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f8b46af0-e0f6-47bb-ad66-c19b528abeea@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 2, 4:09 pm, t... RemoveThis @toast.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:18:15 -0700, "Triple" <rhag... RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > >Let's say some hot head pitcher gets mad after he is taken out of a game
> > >and
> > >fires a ball and full strength into the front row. The hypothetical guy
> > >that
> > >gets taken out would still sue and the disclaimer about balls thrown into
> > >the stands would not hold. It may hold against the stadium owners because
> > >they have no control over the pitcher. The difference here is a matter of
> > >degree on one end (an inherently dangerous act of throwing the ball at
> > >fans
> > >in that manner vs a 'part of the game' bat break). However, it shows the
> > >disclaimer will not hold in all cases. In this case MLB and the PA has
> > >control over maple bats, a defective product. They will get nailed sooner
> > >or
> > >later.
>
> > It has happened. Recall it from a class on torts....many years ago.
>
> > If I still had access to Lexis/Westlaw, I'd try and find the case on point
> > where a MLB pitcher deliberately threw a fastball at a heckling
> > fan...believe the Red Sox were involved.
>
> - Didn't Joey Belle throw a ball at a fan once?
>
> Yeah.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE0DF1730F937A25756...
> Still looking to see if there was any litigation and, if so, what the
> outcome was.  IIRC, he did something similar while he was at LSU, too, but I
> haven't found any documentation of that.  He also tried to run over a
> trick-or-treater with his car once.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E6DB1139F935A25752...
>
> What a nutjob

Agreed. Serious anger management issues with Joey. I'm pretty sure
all of his flame-ups were settled out of court, including the sexual
harrassment of female beat reporters. Which is how any potential
maple-bats-are-from-the-antichrist action would be settled.

s/
 >> Stay informed about: How bout the Dodgers step up... 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: How bout the Dodgers step up... 

<tcol.DeleteThis@toast.net> wrote in message
news:tek844dkm7e0uv2un28p2dni2ahljcnns9@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:18:15 -0700, "Triple" <rhager4.DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Let's say some hot head pitcher gets mad after he is taken out of a game
>>and
>>fires a ball and full strength into the front row. The hypothetical guy
>>that
>>gets taken out would still sue and the disclaimer about balls thrown into
>>the stands would not hold. It may hold against the stadium owners because
>>they have no control over the pitcher. The difference here is a matter of
>>degree on one end (an inherently dangerous act of throwing the ball at
>>fans
>>in that manner vs a 'part of the game' bat break). However, it shows the
>>disclaimer will not hold in all cases. In this case MLB and the PA has
>>control over maple bats, a defective product. They will get nailed sooner
>>or
>>later.
>
> It has happened. Recall it from a class on torts....many years ago.
>
> If I still had access to Lexis/Westlaw, I'd try and find the case on point
> where a MLB pitcher deliberately threw a fastball at a heckling
> fan...believe the Red Sox were involved.
>
> Unfortunately, I cannot recall any more particulars such as whether the
> team also was a defendant and final result...it was an appellate case.
>
> Perhaps, if an attorney or law clerk reads this thread and has some spare
> time, it can be located.
>

Are players independent contractors? I don't think they could be in
California because they can be told where to be when to report to work.
Business law was a long time ago. If they were employees the company could
be held liable. I am not sure what the legal relationship is there.
 >> Stay informed about: How bout the Dodgers step up... 

Sam Hutcheson wrote:
> Agreed. Serious anger management issues with Joey. I'm pretty sure
> all of his flame-ups were settled out of court, including the sexual
> harrassment of female beat reporters. Which is how any potential
> maple-bats-are-from-the-antichrist action would be settled.

Which is what the guy with whom you've mainly been arguing with, has
been suggesting all along. Throw some money at her (not an exorbitant
amount, which I don't think she was at least initially asking for), and
the problem goes away. Maybe even send her some signed memorabilia or
something, just to show goodwill.

You don't even have to call it a moral obligation, if that term bothers
you. Call it smart business. And people settle out of court all the
time without admitting guilt *cough*michaeljackson*cough*, so that's not
even an issue.

--
Now Playing: Ted Nugent - Hammerdown

Fans of Braves and Music: http://www.last.fm/group/Atlanta%2BBraves
 >> Stay informed about: How bout the Dodgers step up... 

On Jun 2, 8:31 pm, Tarkus <karnev... RemoveThis @atlantabraves.net> wrote:
> Sam Hutcheson wrote:
> > Agreed.  Serious anger management issues with Joey.  I'm pretty sure
> > all of his flame-ups were settled out of court, including the sexual
> > harrassment of female beat reporters.  Which is how any potential
> > maple-bats-are-from-the-antichrist action would be settled.
>
> Which is what the guy with whom you've mainly been arguing with, has
> been suggesting all along.  

No. That would have been a reasonable statement. That guy has been
arguing that the Dodgers are morally and legally OBLIGED to "step
up." As such, he's dead wrong.

s/
 >> Stay informed about: How bout the Dodgers step up... 

"Sam Hutcheson" <samh.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:9edb6385-b5f7-4543-a932-02187cad0e76@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 2, 8:31 pm, Tarkus <karnev....DeleteThis@atlantabraves.net> wrote:
> Sam Hutcheson wrote:
> > Agreed. Serious anger management issues with Joey. I'm pretty sure
> > all of his flame-ups were settled out of court, including the sexual
> > harrassment of female beat reporters. Which is how any potential
> > maple-bats-are-from-the-antichrist action would be settled.
>
> Which is what the guy with whom you've mainly been arguing with, has
> been suggesting all along.

No. That would have been a reasonable statement. That guy has been
arguing that the Dodgers are morally and legally OBLIGED to "step
up." As such, he's dead wrong.

In my opinion, they are morally obliged to step up. You obviously believe
otherwise unless your car is damaged.

In my opinion, it is really smart business to step up. You obviously believe
injuring folks is the business's unmitigated right. I disagree.

Which is why law is the lowest acceptable standard of behavior. They become
legally liable the moment they knew maple broke explosively (not my word)
and with very sharp edges. Using a defective piece of equipment is
negligence and they are therefore liable.

Legally, in such a situation the disclaimer you clamor about is a mitigating
factor at best, or useless, or at worst a cynical attempt to mislead people
into giving up their legal right to sue.

Frankly, I don't think I'd sue there if I was her. I know if the Dodgers
came to me and said, "Gee we are sorry about that, let's split the bills and
we'll throw in a pair of really good seats for a game or two" I wouldn't.
Not because they gave me something but because they recognized the issue and
treated me well. Frankly, that would be so much more than I'd expect that
I'd be stunned. Nowadays, it is more likely that a company would sue me for
damaging the bat with my face.

As stated early, lots of lawsuits can be avoided with an apology or some
show of sympathy.
 >> Stay informed about: How bout the Dodgers step up... 

"Sam Hutcheson" <samh.DeleteThis@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:f8b46af0-e0f6-47bb-ad66-c19b528abeea@t12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 2, 4:09 pm, t....DeleteThis@toast.net wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 12:18:15 -0700, "Triple" <rhag....DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >Let's say some hot head pitcher gets mad after he is taken out of a game
> >and
> >fires a ball and full strength into the front row. The hypothetical guy
> >that
> >gets taken out would still sue and the disclaimer about balls thrown into
> >the stands would not hold. It may hold against the stadium owners because
> >they have no control over the pitcher. The difference here is a matter of
> >degree on one end (an inherently dangerous act of throwing the ball at
> >fans
> >in that manner vs a 'part of the game' bat break). However, it shows the
> >disclaimer will not hold in all cases. In this case MLB and the PA has
> >control over maple bats, a defective product. They will get nailed sooner
> >or
> >later.
>
> It has happened. Recall it from a class on torts....many years ago.
>
> If I still had access to Lexis/Westlaw, I'd try and find the case on point
> where a MLB pitcher deliberately threw a fastball at a heckling
> fan...believe the Red Sox were involved.

- Didn't Joey Belle throw a ball at a fan once?

Yeah.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE0DF1730F937A25756C...6795826
Still looking to see if there was any litigation and, if so, what the
outcome was. IIRC, he did something similar while he was at LSU, too, but I
haven't found any documentation of that. He also tried to run over a
trick-or-treater with his car once.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D05E6DB1139F935A25752C...6095826

What a nutjob.
 >> Stay informed about: How bout the Dodgers step up...