By my logic, there should be netting to protect field level seats where fans are susceptible to being struck by line drives.

Here’s a good article about the “Baseball Rule” for assumption of risk. It’s been recognized by courts a long time, but there are some examples where it has been set aside and lawsuits have been to move forward (for example, a case involving a child, since a child is unable to understand and assume risk of injury). …

I’m not saying that the girl deserved to be hit (that’s not true and people implying I said that are putting words in my mouth). But I am saying that people should be careful where they sit with small children when there isn’t protective netting. Is that a controversial thing to say? I have a small child and I…

If a city knew that cars were likely to fly of the road and hit pedestrians on a regular basis, they should probably build a barrier. Thank you for the helpful example.

Kids would have the ability to sit in the front row of a baseball game safely if there was more netting above the dugout and further down the line.

Exactly. Many people don’t realize or think about the potential danger. This is why there should be more netting and the assumption of risk policy is flawed, given that the ballclub knows the risk but many of the customers don’t.

The Yankees extended to the “encouraged minimum” under MLB’s joke of a policy. This didn’t extend it further as called for by many safety experts and the MLBPA, who I believe have pushed for the minimum netting to extend to the far side of the dugout, or even further down the line. The fact that the Yankees are…

You’re really good with analogies.

There’s two people at blame, to varying degrees, in this situation and I mentioned them both (Yankees for not extending netting, and grandparents for sitting with a child in a risky area).

I agree 100%. I always sit behind the netting, for exactly the reasons you say, and don’t notice it at all. Maybe the grandparents thought the seats were safe for a child (which could be understandable since its outside of the netting area, which maybe lead them to think it wasn’t a high risk area). Maybe they…

Exactly. That’s why there should be more netting, so people’s expectations about not being knocked unconscious are met.

“I don’t want to live in a world where you can’t freely bring your kid to a ball game.”

Thanks for reciting the talking point / odious legal principle about assumption of risk that protects a multi-billion dollar corporation from liability when preventable harm is done to its customers. (Hey kid, the legal disclaimer is on the back of the ticket! Sorry! What, you can’t read?)

1) Yankees are at fault for not extending the netting. It’s the obvious and right thing to do.

but seriously, just because GGG didn’t knock out Canelo doesn’t mean he didn’t have a better fight, land more punches, and do more damage. I thought it was close, but 115-113 for GGG seemed about right, 114 each is plausible, and 118-110 Canelo is a joke.

wut dafaq u tlking bout bruh

This seems like a play someone named Mikie Mahtook would make.

(26 weeks x 40 hours x $7.25) =$7,540. Subtract her laughable $125 stipend, and she could be owed $7,415 for just the minimum wage violation. It’s not a lot, but it seems like something that can be litigated. And also, you have to consider that maybe she’s a good plaintiff for other reasons...maybe she has good…

As someone who does math for a living...she stopped working there in February 2015, the look-back period for willful violations goes through August 2014, so that means she has a potential claim on about 6 months of pay for minimum wage and overtime violations. Tell me again why this makes her a terrible plaintiff?

I said to myself, “not gonna watch this one.” But then I worked up the courage and it’s worse than I was expected. Jesus.