Family of 10-year-old files lawsuit against Baltimore Orioles

[BradyBunch]

I think it's safe to say that lobbying and propaganda goes back further than 1847.

Not from frivolous law suits as you claim in your previous post.

Seriously, though, this is an extremely complicated issue that seems simple on the surface. BradyBunch, you seem to think it's potentially simple in the eyes of the law as it currently stands. If that's true (and I have no idea whether it is but you sound like you know what you're talking about), then I think we can agree (regardless of your opinion on the law itself) that the subject of how we got to the current laws is a complicated issue in itself. (I did my best to leave my personal opinion out of this paragraph. I hope I did okay.)

It's not that complicated. It's pretty simple. O's and MSA are 100% at fault or they aren't. As the law stands now, that's all that matters.

[Odenton O]

No, but it's also an assumption of the risk issue. Everyone knows that it is a possibility that you can get hit by a ball at a ballpark. There are even signs posted at every walkway well.

For all the arguing over negligence, I still think assumption of the risk is the reall issue. It doesn't take any negligence for the girl to get hit by a baseball, on anyone's part. She was standing on the freaking flag court, 390 feet away from home plate--the ushers didn't put her somewhere particularly dangerous. And we don't know that her father acted negligently either. The point is, even with no negligence on anyone's part, its possible to get by a ball in that situation, and for the consequences to be very devastating. But that is the risk you run by going to the game in the first place. Sometimes, **** happens. That doesn't mean that someone is at fault.

[TakebackOPACY]

Really, I only sort of care who is responsible. In the real down-to-earth you-and-I-having-a-conversation definition, noone was ;reckless'. To me the moral question is: If a 10-year old girl is hit in the face with a baseball and has to have 9 hours of surgery, 15 titanium plates installed in her face, therapy for brain trauma, and a lifetime of medical consequences, what should our society do about it?

There's no good and easy answer to that. I'm not willing to accept "make the family accept the entire burden." And, unfortunately, in our system, this leads to a necessary lawsuit. I have no problem with that. It certainly isn't frivolous ("not having any serious purpose or value").

No, but it's also an assumption of the risk issue. Everyone knows that it is a possibility that you can get hit by a ball at a ballpark. There are even signs posted at every walkway well.

Does everyone know that a ball from 390 feet away can cause the damage that this one caused?

[Odenton O]

I am not taking a side. It's a bs lawsuit at the start of it. Don't get me wrong.. I feel bad for her but her parents have no legal standing to sue. It'll get tossed quickly.

Standing? Of course they have standing to sue.

They may not have a viable cause of action, but that's a different issue entirely.

[Odenton O]

Really, I only sort of care who is responsible. In the real down-to-earth you-and-I-having-a-conversation definition, noone was ;reckless'. To me the moral question is: If a 10-year old girl is hit in the face with a baseball and has to have 9 hours of surgery, 15 titanium plates installed in her face, therapy for brain trauma, and a lifetime of medical consequences, what should our society do about it?

There's no good and easy answer to that. I'm not willing to accept "make the family accept the entire burden." And, unfortunately, in our system, this leads to a necessary lawsuit. I have no problem with that. It certainly isn't frivolous ("not having any serious purpose or value").

I was going to post this in response to Roy's earlier post, where he said that the right thing to happen was for the Orioles to pay for it, whether they were legally obligated to or no. IMO, the right thing to happen is that the girl and her family have health insurance, and the health insurance covers it. The insurance company can go after the team, MSA, MLB, etc., if they think there is a viable cause of action there. But otherwise, they cover her bills and her family can focus on her getting better rather than who to sue. Which means, effectively, we all pick up a little of it. But I agree with you, this family shouldn't be expected to pick up the whole tab for having this dropped on them.

[TakebackOPACY]

Not from frivolous law suits as you claim in your previous post.

Why do you keep saying this? Why do you think this is true?

It's not that complicated. It's pretty simple. O's and MSA are 100% at fault or they aren't. As the law stands now, that's all that matters.

Wow.

simple-in-the-eyes-of-the-law != (is not equal to) simple; That was the point of the whole paragraph you quoted.

[BradyBunch]

I am sure most people don't go to the game to catch a home run. You can get a basball for cheaper than a ticket.

Seriously? buying a baseball is not the same experience as catching a home run ball..

[TakebackOPACY]

I was going to post this in response to Roy's earlier post, where he said that the right thing to happen was for the Orioles to pay for it, whether they were legally obligated to or no. IMO, the right thing to happen is that the girl and her family have health insurance, and the health insurance covers it. The insurance company can go after the team, MSA, MLB, etc., if they think there is a viable cause of action there. But otherwise, they cover her bills and her family can focus on her getting better rather than who to sue. Which means, effectively, we all pick up a little of it. But I agree with you, this family shouldn't be expected to pick up the whole tab for having this dropped on them.

Excellent point. And one I was aware I left out in hopes of getting to the simplest starting point for approaching a complicated issue. If we ask "should a girl get hit in the face with a baseball?" I think we'll have a unanimous starting point. Every question after that gets more complicated. In this case, we don't know what their insurance covers or doesn't cover.

[BradyBunch]

Standing? Of course they have standing to sue.

They may not have a viable cause of action, but that's a different issue entirely.

No, they still have to prove they have standing.. all they did was file. You can file (bring suit) on anything you want and claim you have standing.. it's later when standing will be addressed.

[BradyBunch]

Wow.

simple-in-the-eyes-of-the-law != (is not equal to) simple; That was the point of the whole paragraph you quoted.

What you want to do morally and outside of law for someone who has an accident or whatever is up to you. If you wanna donate money to her.. go ahead. But in the court certain criteria have to met. In this case they have to prove without a doubt the Orioles and MSA were 100% responsible. This can't be proven just knowing they could have easily stood on Eutaw street until their section opened and thus not forced into harm but chose to be in harms way.

[TakebackOPACY]

Not from frivolous law suits as you claim in your previous post.

Hey, Sorry. I re-read a bit and understand where you're coming from. My first post addressed the law as if it were a recent law and you pointed out that it's a law that has been around since 1847. As we're prone to do in a debate, I focused on a flaw in your literal wording instead and missed the spirit of your post. You are correct that I assumed incorrectly that it was more recent.

Turns out, (as I'm sure you know far moreso than me) that it's common law and has been upheld a couple times recently.

[TakebackOPACY]

What you want to do morally and outside of law for someone who has an accident or whatever is up to you. If you wanna donate money to her.. go ahead. But in the court certain criteria have to met. In this case they have to prove without a doubt the Orioles and MSA were 100% responsible. This can't be proven just knowing they could have easily stood on Eutaw street until their section opened and thus not forced into harm but chose to be in harms way.

Please understand that, yes, I think it is worthwhile to discuss the merits of the law itself. Yes, I think that if there are differences here between what the law dictates and what is morally right, it is important. I appreciate you bringing your legal insight to the thread (I really do; I even repped you for it). But I'm not sure why you only want to discuss the letter of the law. I'll read curiously and try to learn something where others discuss or debate strict interpretation of the law.

[hoosiers]

These cases have very little legal substance to them based on what is stated on the back of the ticket and the precedent of prior cases. Any lawyer should know this. There is a risk of being hit by a baseball pretty much anywhere in the ballpark.

That said, my expectation is that PA would pick up the tab on this one. Perhaps the litigious nature of the family involved hints at "why not".

[Odenton O]

No, they still have to prove they have standing.. all they did was file. You can file (bring suit) on anything you want and claim you have standing.. it's later when standing will be addressed.

Ok, so what?

She's a minor. They are her parents. All the actors were in Baltimore. They filed in a court of general jurisdiction.

You really think there's a question as to whether they had standing to file the suit? Based on what?

[Odenton O]

What you want to do morally and outside of law for someone who has an accident or whatever is up to you. If you wanna donate money to her.. go ahead. But in the court certain criteria have to met. In this case they have to prove without a doubt the Orioles and MSA were 100% responsible. This can't be proven just knowing they could have easily stood on Eutaw street until their section opened and thus not forced into harm but chose to be in harms way.

Oh, do they now? Pray tell.