On October 23rd, 2009, a Montana Jury has awarded a significant damage claim against Louisville Slugger for the 2003 death of a pitcher who was hit by a ball coming off one of their aluminum bats.

• For those not aware of our previous articles on this safety issue, click here.

Clearly this decision may have far-reaching implications and we wanted to know what you think. It was not our attention to dismiss the consequences of the fatal injury to Brandon Patch. But some voters had very strong opinions on this matter. We have included a few of their comments here, more appear on the separate comment page.


The vast majority of voters disagreed with the ruling (see top chart). When we asked about the amount of the award (second chart), the response was equally strong, and somewhat surprising.

Here is one of the strongest statements we received against such lawsuits. Warning: there is at least one sentence in this about the victim that is bound to upset many readers...

America has become a "suit happy" nation. It seems as though no one wants to take responsibility for one's own actions anymore. I think this is due to the liberal judges and juries for awarding outrageous sums to a plaintiff for what I believe is the defendant's own stupidity. I would like to see baseball go back to wooden bats after the 12 year old level, not for safety necessarily, but of respect for the game. A wooden bat CAN be even more dangerous that aluminum in that when a bat shatters, splinters can go almost anywhere in the infield. There is no way a bat manufacturer can be held responsible for this type of tragedy. It is just, unfortunately, one of the risks of playing the game. I have seen so many pitchers that deliver the ball with a poor or no fielding stance after the delivery. I'm not saying that Patch had a poor fielding stance, but maybe pitchers should be taught more how to protect himself by developing a good fielding stance.

When we looked deeper into the issue of liability, other results and comments surprised us. The actual question asked: "Do you believe bat makers should be liable for injury or death caused by balls coming off the bat?"

One comment criticized the way we asked the question...

Question #3 is poorly worded. The only time a bat manufacturer should be liable is when there is actual, no doubt, full proof, that there was a flaw/fault in the bat due to manufacturing/quality control. When signing up to play baseball, the forms should have a "I read and understood the possibility of injury/death and I agree to accept the risk". Fault of instruction, equipment condition and such, well that could be left open to law suit. This will make the coaches more aware and responsible in regards to instruction and equipment condition.

But we also received a comment from someone closer to this incident who raised another issue about who should or should not be included when considering liability...

I coach 10-12 yr old Cal Ripken League ball for a neighboring Montana town that plays against Miles City's 10-12 teams. No one can argue that Brandon's death was not a tragedy. It deeply affected us all in the Montana baseball community. The bat manufacturer has been vilified in Brandon's death, but the never-ending, pushing of the envelope to develop the ultimate performance bat is a result of the external market demand from the competitive baseball/softball community. What the manufacturer did was give us what we had continued asking for. In their first game against us, the Miles City team used wooden bats for the first couple of innings. I told their coach that I understood their position, but that I had not been issued any wooden bats by my Rec District to play with. He switched his players to metal bats for the last several innings.

There is a general perception out there on metal vs wood, as we found out when we asked "do you believe wood is as dangerous as aluminum?" As the same voter went on to say...

In my mind, mandating a switch to wooden bats would just change the hazard from high-velocity impact from batted balls to being struck by sharp flying shards of broken maple bats. Those of us old enough to remember how an ash bat breaks as opposed to maple's sharp flying shards know that maple is not a safe substitute for an ash bat. Without enough quality ash wood available to supply the world's players with ash bats, I feel the # of fatalities from flying maple shards would be about the same as from batted balls from high-performance metal bats. In the end, the answer lays with the governing bodies of the youth leagues. They must step up and mandate lower (safer) maximum allowable exit velocities by limiting the rebound of the metal bats used in their leagues. Bat manufacturers have this metallurgical control in their manufacturing process.

For the record, WebBall disagrees with one point here. The ash/maple controversy is not as clear-cut as no-shards/shards. Based on MLB research, the problem is a consequence of how maple has been improperly selected and oriented before lathing. So wood also needs to be looked at from the manufacturing viewpoint - click here.


The bat maker under attack said the following: "the verdict appears to be an indictment of the entire sport of baseball?" We asked our voters if they agreed with that assessment. More were undecided but many agreed.

So what exactly are the safety implications, with the bats and with baseball? And did this change your views?

Two questions looked into this, asking: "did this story and verdict change your mind about aluminum bats specifically and/or baseball in general." For the vast majority (81% on bats, 98% of the sport), it changed nothing. In the words of one voter...

There is "risk" inherent in everything we do...from brushing your teeth to crossing the street to fielding a ground ball. Why must we always "pin the blame" on someone or something? Question: Why was the bat maker held liable and not the ball manufacturer? I have seen the business end of a broken bat fly toward a shortstop and windup stuck several inches into the infield turf. Shadow Ball anyone?

Beyond the general risks, and the individual lawsuits, there is the possibility (probability) of "off-loading" the insurance costs, which is what we asked next...


...followed by a final question on whether more warnings would change anything.

This was a multiple choice question and was really intended to get people to comment, which it did. So in addition to the comments included above, click here for more voter opinions. As you'll quickly see, there is a strong bias in favor of wood bats and an end to the 30-year reign of metal.