Jury Awards Pitcher Nearly $900,000 Against Bat Maker Because He Was Hit by a Ball
A pitcher throws a fastball and gets hit in the face with a line drive ball. Tragic? Absolutely. Uncommon? Thankfully, yes. But unanticipated? Hardly. Tickets to professional baseball games even carry warnings that spectators -- not just players -- must bear the risk of being hit with a baseball. Thus, it is hardly surprising that the person standing closest to the batter (other than the catcher and the umpire, who are behind the batter) and in the batter's direct line of fire legally should be aware of a substantial risk of being hit and seriously injured by a baseball.
So should the bat manufacturer be liable for the injuries caused when a pitcher gets in the face with a ball? To even ask the question is to answer it: absolutely not.
So why did such a case recently go to a jury? Law 360 recently reported that last Friday an Oklahoma federal jury awarded a pitcher $871,000 in actual damages (and gave his parents $80,095.85 in actual damages) for an aluminum bat that allegedly was defectively designed and contained insufficient warnings. The case is styled Yeaman v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., Case No. CIV-10-1097-F (W.D. Okla.).
Dillon Yeaman had been playing baseball since he was four. On June 28, 2006, he was pitching in a high-school-age summer league game. His catcher called for a fastball. Dillon threw one, and the batter connected, hitting a line drive. The ball struck Dillon in the face, fracturing bones, causing scarring, and robbing him of his sense of smell and taste.
Dillon sued the company that made the Louisville Slugger Exogrid bat that the batter had been swinging, arguing that the bat had two defects. The design defect was, essentially, that it allowed balls to be hit at speeds that give pitchers insufficient time to react and protect themselves. The warning defect allegedly was the failure to place a sticker on the bat stating that balls can leave the bat at speeds that can give players no opportunity to react, potentially causing serious injury or death.
The problem with this lawsuit is that it did not identify an actual defect. The bat did precisely what it was intended to do -- allow the batter to propel the ball with power. Notably, there was no evidence that the bat caused the ball to travel faster than a wooden bat would have done. And plaintiffs disclaimed any notion that they were attacking the metal bat industry generally. Yet they pointed to no specific detail of the Exogrid that allegedly caused the injury. Indeed, according to the Defendant's summary judgment proof, the exit speed of the Exogrid had been tested by the NCAA's independent bat certification laboratory. Not only did it meet the NCAA standard of having a ball exit speed of no greater than 97 miles per hour, but in the NCAA's 2006 testing, the Exogrid had an exit speed of 95.5 miles per hour -- lower than the acceptable limit, and in the middle of metal bats. The Exogrid was in compliance with all requirements and specifications of the NCAA, the National Federation of High Schools, the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association, and various summer leagues, including the Pure Prairie League in which Dillon was playing.
Moreover, the law imposes no duty to warn about risks that are known or obvious. The coach of the batter's team testified in support of summary judgment that:
The Louisville Slugger Exogrid bat was no more or less popular than any of the other bats in use in 2006 and did not stand out as a more "powerful" bat than others.
In my opinion, baseball players at the high school level understand and accept the risk that they can be hit by a thrown or batted ball. It is my further understanding that a pitcher at the high school level, including players in the Pure Prairie League, understand and accept the risk of being hit by a batted ball, be it a line drive or otherwise. This is a natural and inherent risk of the game of baseball.
Dillon was an experienced player who knew these risks. He had pitched against batters using metal bats in practice and games in the junior high and high school levels. He testified at deposition that he had hit line drives near a pitcher that the pitcher had no time to get his glove up and catch. And twice before June 28, 2006, Dillon had been hit by balls himself. He even admitted that he did not need to be warned that balls hit off of bats could hit him.
Although he testified that he believed the bats should have a warning that balls hit off of the bats could be unavoidable and could cause serious injury, he admitted that he as the pitcher would not see warnings written on a bat.
Ironically, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has held that the risks of softball are so open and obvious that even a spectator in the stands assumes the risk of being hit by a ball. Lang v. Amateur Softball Ass'n, 520 P.2d 659, 662 (Okla. 1974) ("the risk of being struck by a batted or thrown ball is one of the natural risks assumed by spectators attending a ballgame"). But the trial court in Yeaman rejected the defendant's summary judgment motion and its Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law. This leads to a perverse result: although a spectator at the June 28, 2006 game could not reach a jury under Lang because she assumed the risk as a matter of law, the player most obviously at risk of being hit by a ball not only could reach a jury, but receive a verdict.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that a court has allowed a suit to proceed against the maker of a metal bat despite the obvious assumption of the risk. I previously have posted about a similar jury verdict, which was affirmed by the Montana Supreme Court this year. Refusing to give effect to the obvious assumption of risk and the legal principle that one has no duty to warn of risks that are known or obvious risks making bat manufacturers no-fault insurers of their products, liable for all injuries that occur during the use of their products regardless of legal principles.
