Are bats too powerful?

They might be according to Los Angeles' 2nd District Court of Appeals.

"A defendant owes no duty of care to protect a plaintiff against risks inherent in a particular sport voluntarily played by the plaintiff," Justice J. Gary Hastings wrote. "But the defendant owes a duty to participants not to increase the risk of harm over and above that inherent in the sport."

Justices Norman Epstein and Daniel Curry concurred.

The bat in question is an Air Attack 2, a hollow aluminum alloy bat with a pressurized air bladder that greatly increases the speed at which the ball leaves the surface of the bat. The court's ruling, carried to its logical conclusion, could apply to all new equipment -- golf clubs, hockey sticks, tennis rackets and more -- that change the nature of games by increasing the risk of injuries.

To me the assumption of risk doctrine should still apply in this case. The person sueing, Andrew Sanchez, was a pitcher for California State University. He filed suit after suffering head injuries from a line drive hit by a player for USC using an Air Attack 2. This is not something that is out of the ordinary in baseball. The ball was going faster then what it would off of a wooden bat, but that doesn't change the generic scenario.

(via Overlawyered.com)

Posted by Chris Short at January 04, 2003 02:55 PM