Here's a couple of articles about how courts have handled similar situations writer by a FanGraphs former part time writer that was a full-time lawyer for the day job. Law is weird sometimes. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/protective-netting-and-moral-hazards/ https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-ballpark-netting-debate-is-back/
No legal obligation until they do, which a court could rule they have. The more common serious injuries become, the less viable the defense of a printed warning becomes. Its largely why they are extending the netting. Not just to be the good guys, but they understand one bad ruling could lead to a disaster.
Well it wouild likely go something like this... The parents sue the Astros, Cubs, and MLB with their child listed as et al on the lawsuit. The defense will file for summary judgement citing the "baseball rule." If by chance a judge decides to set aside all the precedent and let the case proceed the Astros would appeal that decision all the way to the Supreme Court because it is their entire case. So then in 5 years or maybe longer the Supreme Court would rule, and if they tossed the "baseball rule" out it would go back to the lower court for a trial. The other reality is the Astros, Cubs, and MLB will have business insurance. That means they aren't even paying their lawyers. The insurance company is. At some point the insurance company might offer a settlement based on the cost to litigate the case. Otherwise, the Astros will just sit back and let it ride. The plaintiffs will spend the next decade of their lives under terrible stress constantly worrying about the case. The next owner of the Astros might have to deal with it in a decade plus.... Or... the family can take what the Astros offer now.
This was my initial take at the time as well, but the biggest problem with that rationale is is that the Astros (and MLB as a whole) had had overwhelming evidence for quite some time about the need for safer netting systems. You can’t just say the onus is on the parents when the activity is inherently dangerous, hence why the nets were universally installed across the league shortly thereafter. I was against the netting system when it was first discussed, but in hindsight it’s a no brainer. Putting the onus wholly on the parents isn’t realistic, safe, or even reasonable. Should parents just never drive with children because of the possibility of drunk drivers? Even people operating at their fullest capacity still make mistakes...procedural safeguards are still necessary.
drunk driving happens at all hours of the day (as does general negligent car accidents not tied to intoxication) but if you want to die on this hill then go ahead.
Taking them to a game is one thing, but I still can't wrap my head around thinking it was ok to sit in the field boxes
I agree with you. How were they able to go without netting in MLB since the 18,00's and now there's netting but apparently not enough netting. Sign of the times which we live?
2 year old can get ear damage from the loud noise. It can be over 100 decibels even more if the guy next to you scream at the top of the lungs.
