What a horrible outcome and a horrible decision to sit there that led to the outcome. Sad that it was such an easily avoidable event with just some common sense from the parents.
Horrible what happened to this little girl. From reading, she will face debilitating consequences for likely the rest of her life. The article i read said these injuries are likely permanent ramification.... A very sad situation. I would not be so callous to admonish the girls family, because I’ve been to plenty of games where fans are lost in Lala land not paying attention to the action on the field. Unfortunately it’s human nature to get complacent. This was an unfortunate accident. And baseball is doing the right thing and installing nets to further protect fans. In today’s age, everyone and their brother is distracted by their phone, which is vastly different from previous baseball generations.
I agree the netting should be there and having the netting there when my son was 2 would have been nice to open up those seats as a possibility. I crossed off any seats within 250 feet of home plate when searching for tickets back then.
? SMDH A parent needs to either sit somewhere else or pay attention to keep this from happening to their baby. Common sense apparently ain't so common. Baseball has been played for 200 years and this has rarely happened. Why all of the sudden is it happening more regularly? Watch the damn game, especially if you have a child with you and take one for your child if you take the child to the game. Stay off of your phone during the game.
I'd sue for sure given what has happened. If MLB isn't covering every penny of the medical costs in some form or fashion (by team or league), then I think that is shameful because it is the least they could do.
The fact that MLB has extended netting is basically an admission that it was always unsafe. I can tell you a lot of things that were done for awhile in society that were thought to be ok... till they weren't. Likely also have to factor stadiums featuring seats closer to the action, some stadiums now being more intimate and having more volume of seats filled regularly (unlike the old cookie-cutter stadiums that had way too many seats due to football), faster hit velocity, etc.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20180330/more-baseball-fans-getting-hit-by-the-ball Getting hit by a baseball isn’t too uncommon. Yes being a vigilante parent is paramount. However, an accident can happen in a blink of an eye. To admonish and cast blame on a parent without knowing all the facts is irresponsible. Those parents are going to have a life sentence in looking out for perhaps a special needs child for the rest of their lives. If anything, MLB should at least had public service announcements, given the social addiction to cell phones.
i'm sure somewhere on the game ticket mention watch the game at your own risk and the team and stadium is not liable for any injuries caused by a foul ball? I'd never and can't understand why anyone would bring a 2 yr old to a baseball game....
Definitely. The netting is a no brainer. It's not like at little league fields with the annoying chain link fence that does obstruct your view. The netting is barely noticeable.
Honestly, it doesn't matter why the guy brought the child. The Astros will pay the medical bills at the very least, I would be shocked if they didn't. I also wouldn't be surprised if they paid additional compensation due to loss of earning potential (ability to support family... if she can even have one when she grows up). I can't imagine an organization that sells a "family friendly environment" not stepping up to the plate when a child is permanently disabled at your event. It will be a PR disaster for the Astros organization if they don't pay up and as part of the deal make sure the family doesn't speak poorly of the organization.... that's just the cost of doing business.
I hope so, but the lawyer talking to the media says otherwise. I believe the family wants a big number and the Astros are not providing it. The family asks for privacy at the time then we get this news about the 2 year old current situation. It tells me they wanted more than what is offered. This is the reason I never take any kids under elementary age to games. Not only the sound of the ball, but the decibel (noise) is not good for the ear.
They have no legal obligation to pay. The legal precedent is very strong. They aren't going to offer up millions and millions of dollars when this would very likely be tossed via summary judgement. They will offer some help and hopefully the Cubs will chip in but this isn't going to be a huge score for the family when they literally can't win in court.
I'm not so sure about that. Obviously, the defenses available to the Astros are assumption of the risk and waiver. Assumption of the risk is an affirmative defense that essentially says the plaintiff knew, or reasonably should have known, the inherent risk that a foul ball, or otherwise errant ball, might enter the seating area and cause physical injury to an entrant. By attending an activity that poses such an inherent risk, the spectator assumes the risk of injury. Likewise, waiver exists by virtue of posted notice that an entrant to the game waives his right to recovery of damages caused by the natural processes of the game.Those are affirmative defenses and would serve the basis for a motion for summary judgement. However, there is a flip side. The injured is a minor of tender age, and the law assumes an incapacity of such a person to knowingly waive any rights at law. Moreover, the defense of assumption of the risk might not be insulate the defendant from liability. Again the plaintiff, at age 2, is legally incapable of consenting to an assumption of risk. The defense would have to argue that the plaintiff's cause of action is against the parents who negligently allowed their child to attend the game, and if recovery is to occur from the incident it should come from them. The obvious problem with that approach is that if the suit were to survive a motion for summary judgment, and proceed to jury trial, the defense might be walking a tightrope because a jury would not be sympathetic towards any argument that the parents, and not the defendant, are responsible for the injuries sustained by the child.
