Kid hit by pitch, dad sues

Wintertime. They live in Ohio, and who know's how Johnny Preciousness' wrist is going to feel come January, you know.

 

Yeah, lots of hypotheticals to spread around

My point is you can't dismiss out of hand that the coach may have told the kid to hit batter intentionally.

 

I think the remark "Good" by the coach in question, if verified, should work for a nice settlement.

 

Nah, guess not. I didn't read the whole scenario closely enough.

 

It could have been a suicide squeeze - the ball is dead once it comes off the batter's hand, either a foul ball if he was offering at it when it hit him or a HBP if he was pulling back; we'll never know if the kid on third would have been out. I don't know why you'd do a suicide squeeze instead of a safety squeeze in that situation (or a squeeze at all with the bases loaded), but it's certainly possible that was the play that was on.

Things we need to know but don't: What was the count? There's a mention of two pitches, but the squeeze sign could have been put on later in the at bat. Was the kid awarded a base or was it considered a foul ball/strike? If it's the latter, there's obviously no case. If he was awarded a base, it means the ball was out of the strike zone but doesn't necessarily mean it was an intentional HBP. Heck, I'd think the hand is the last place you'd hit a guy for an intentional HBP.

(The comment section, depending on how much weight you put there, says the opposing coach's "Good!" was in reaction to the ball going foul off the bunt attempt for what he thought was a strike. No idea how true that is.)

 

Smash, and a few others: Please rewad this carefully. Maybe you'll realize that the HBP was on the second supposed suicide squeeze attempt.

Michael Connick, a 13-year-old player on the Chardon Blizzard traveling team, was given the signal for a suicide squeeze against the North Coast Titans.
When the Munson Township boy got a pitch that was high and inside, he pulled back his attempt at a bunt.
He was again given the signal for a suicide squeeze and squared to bunt.


It can not have been a suicide squeeze if the kid pulled the bat back the first time. And there is nothing that would indicate the scumbag lawyer father has any case at all.

 

spnited - you're right, my bad. I thought Baron's comment was in reference to the play with the HBP, not the pitch before it.

 

Yeah, and I didn't differentiate between the two pitches. I was referring to the reporter calling the first attempt a suicide squeeze.

 

The more I read into this, the more I wonder if the reporter isn't a friend of the dad/lawyer.

If it were a suicide squeeze bunt, as he states, the runner on third would be an easy out.

I mean, the reporter is reporting second-hand information, insomuch as the dad/lawyer wasn't even at the game. Was the reporter at the game?

Sometimes a reporter gets into a habit of trying to make a story rather than report one.

A lawsuit, even a frivolous one, which this certainly seems, is a story. But reporting on what someone "heard" from a friend of a friend is not.

 

On the facts alleged in the claim the father would likely be able to prove a prima facie case for the tort of battery against the man who ordered the pitcher to throw at the boy. Battery is the intentional harmful or offensive touching of the plaintiff with resulting damages. Here, it is alleged that the man ordered the son to throw and hit the boy with a baseball. Since the man intended for the boy to be hit, using the pitcher and the ball as his instrumentality for this conduct, the elements of battery are satisfied.

The man could raise the defense of consent. The defense of consent is available when a person engages in a sport where some harmful or offensive touching is a natural result of participating in the sport. For example, in football the players impliedly consent to being tackled. Similarly, in baseball, players consent to being tagged. However, consent in the context of sporting events is limited to the natural and usual types of conduct involved in the sport. For example, a football player being punched in the face long after a play is over, or a hockey player being intentionally clubbed in the back of the head with a stick when he is nowhere near the puck are instances where the plaintiff does not consent to the type of harm suffered. Similarly here, the boy will not be considered to have consented to being intentionally hit with a pitch.

Another area that could be discussed with the given fact scenario are negligence, if the pitcher did not intend to hit the boy. A negligence action would likely fail because the standard of care for a 13-year-old pitcher would not be violated by merely accidentally hitting a batter with a pitched ball because the pitcher's duty is only that of a child of similar age, experience and maturity. Batters getting hit by pitches is likely a common occurrence in baseball and thus the pitcher's conduct would not fall below the duty of care owed.

 

POO: Three words, TOTAL BULL SHIT!

There is nothing that indicates the coach ordered the pitcher to throw at the kid. Show me the fucking proof before you start pontificating in support of the scumbag lawyer father.

 

Isn't BULL SHIT one word?