I don’t see where the relative difference between types of bats would matter. Wooden bats are rarely if ever used at any level of amateur competition, for almost solely economic reasons (hint: they don’t break). I would bet this kid has never played with anything but aluminum in his life.
I would also bet that he has seen numerous other players hit by batted balls and injured.
I can only hope the case is found frivolous and the parents enjoy large amounts of public humiliation.
I have to say that after years of having my kids in both baseball and softball, I didn’t know that aluminum bats were faster. But, even with that, wooden bats have caused the same kinds of injuries. Even at the pro level. Is there really enough difference at a high school level that it would be easier for a pitcher to get out of the way of a ball coming off a wooden bat? In the distance involved is there really a significant time difference? I really am asking, even though I’m a little skeptical.
I’m going to weigh in on the side of dismissal (demurrer here in California) rather than summary judgment. The complaint on its face would show an assumption of the risk: there is always a danger to the pitcher of severe head injury, wooden or aluminium. Baseball has inherent dangers even to the spectators.
Cecil wrote about this many years ago.
As for the OP, it definitely sounds like a frivolous lawsuit to me. I think that unless the plaintiffs can show that the particular aluminum bat was specifically designed to produce a higher ball speed than any other aluminum bat, this case doesn’t stand much of a chance.
No way does it have to have been intentionally designed to produce higher ball speeds, Atreyu. Products liability is based in large part on strict liability, which means that if the product is “defective” (by defect, design, or inadequate warning), the manufacturer will be liable for any injury.
Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing that out, minty green.
Obviously I’m not a lawyer. 
A little searching on bats tells me that this case might not be quite as frivolous as you are all assuming. First, I found an article on the development of aluminum bats containing pressurized air compartments which indicates that they are continuing to get better and have more power than a standard aluminum bat. They also mention the reason that aluminum bats aren’t used in pro ball.
The I found a site that had reviews on the air attack 3 which I assume is similar to the air attack 2. The reviews make me think this isn’t just a matter of aluminum bats. They contain statements like “This is a very big bat for very big boys, and it can hit the ball farther than any other brand name baseball bat” or hitting with this bat is like shooting off a cannon. One review in particular was particullarly on point.
Let’s assume that the bat in question is inherently dangerous.
I think a jury could find that, had a proper warning been on the bat, then the batter, his coach, the school, or the league would have taken precautions that would have benefitted the pitcher. Certainly if I discovered that my child were using athletic equipment that posed a special hazard to other players, I wouldn’t let him or her use it. (And I would make sure that the other players weren’t using it.)
**
Well, it would be for a jury to evaluate the pros and cons. In any event, the plaintiff would be entitled to argue that (1) there is a better alternative design, aluminum or wood; and (2) in any event, he (or the coach, league, etc.) was entitled to a warning.
**
Again, it would be for the jury to decide. In any event, it seems logical to me that, at a minimum, the plaintiff’s injuries would have been less severe had a wooden bat been used.
lucwarm,
I’m not arguing that it shouldn’t be left to a jury to decide, but it’s not enough to assume that the bat is inherently dangerous- any bat, and for that matter the game of baseball, is. The lawsuit allleges that the bat is defective because:
1 it doesn’t give the pitcher sufficient time to react
2 the company failed to warn users and those who could be affected of the risk that when hit directly toward the pitcher it doesn’t give the pitcher enough time to react
3 failed to affix labels
4 designed a product that lacked adequate safety features
(pick any or all of the above)
and that
IANAL, but I don’t think he can argue that if the coach or league were warned they would have taken precautions. I think that can only happen if he sues the league for negligence in allowing the bat, or the batter for using it and they then drag the manufacturer in.
My real problem is this line :
I suppose this might be true if the bat in question were the only aluminum bat on the market, or even if there was an allegation that this bat is much more dangerous than other aluminum bats (but there wasn’t). But it seems to be pretty common knowledge among those who know and play baseball that aluminum bats
When I said to assume that the bat is inherently dangerous, my intention was to assume that all issues were favorable to the plaintiff except for the one you initially raised – the fact that any warning would have been unlikely to be seen by the pitcher. I concede I could have been clearer.
**
Well, I don’t really know the answer for sure, but I do know that, generally speaking, third parties who are reasonably foreseeably injured by defective products can bring direct actions against the manufacturer. I don’t see why this principal would not also apply to “failure to warn” claims. But feel free to come up with a cite that says otherwise.
I’d be interested to see the complaint in this case.
Next they’ll be going after gun makers.
lucwarm-
go to the link in the OP for the complaint
Unngh.
I played baseball for 13 years before giving it up for that wonderful sport softball, where you can drink and play at the same time. I stood on pitching mounds much like this 17 year old. I knew from a damn young age that baseballs move fast when a good hitter gets a hold of a pitch, and it doesn’t matter if they are using a wood or an aluminum bat. I’ve been hit by several line drives up the middle (fortunately, not in the head), and I will tell you that if a hitter connects, it doesn’t matter what that bat is made of, its going to hit you. You are 60’6" away from the hitter, and that ball comes off of any bat, aluminum or wood, much faster than the speed at which you threw it.
I’d be interested to see this young man’s delivery to the plate. Pitchers are taught that they need to be in enough control of their bodies to be in a position to defend themselves when the ball is hit. Some pitchers do not do this because they cannot throw the ball as hard. If this pitcher’s delivery were such that he were “falling off” the mound after a pitch, then coaching and/or the pitcher are as much to blame as the bat. I was the type of pitcher who followed through my body and left it in a horrible position when the ball was hit. But I knew that danger was there. I also wanted to play at the next level. But even if his delivery was the classic delivery, a batted ball can move at a pitcher faster than he/she can react some times. Proper mechanics make it less likely.
As someone who played the game, this is a frivolous suit. If you have reached the high school level of baseball, you know the risks. The bat isn’t even in the equation. If that pitcher has never had a ball fly past him without ever seeing it, then I want to sign him up for the Brewers when he gets better, because he must have some remarkable stuff. In this litigous country, and myself not being a lawyer, it is hard for me to say whether a court will find this legit. But IMHO, the kid new before going out there, with or without a warning label, wood or aluminum, that this was possible.
Where I can see a legit case along this line was a case several years ago where the caps on the end of a particular bat was popping off at very high speeds when the ball was hit, injuring people. That is a legit case to go after a bat maker. Or an aluminum bat that shears off (which I’ve seen). In this case, no.
Holy beanballs Bat Manufacturer! 
Oh, man.
So I have to admit that this ranks up there with the McDonald’s coffee incident.
It’s so hard to repress the urge to demand that people be given an IQ test before we let them have a breeding permit.
Kids can get hurt playing baseball? My gosh! We’d better pass a law!
Please do a search in the Great Debates archives so that you can learn a little about “the McDonald’s coffee incident.” To pass that off so blithely indicates that you know very little about the evidence of McDonald’s conduct or the trial and subsequent appeal of the plaintiff’s claims.
porkchop, you’re new here, so this is part of the initiation rites, along with words ending in -gry and the like.
On this board, saying something’s analogous to the McDonald’s coffee case is saying that, despite how stupid it looks at first blush, it’s actually on very solid ground. (Follow the link to see how the argument went when we initially hashed this one out.)