Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
Sure. But they would have significantly more liability if they had a known risk and a known solution, and chose to ignore it. They're free to ignore it, but by ignoring it they should assume liability if an avoidable injury occurs. The point being that because a facility has some risk of financial damage if someone gets hurt, they're at least self motivated to fix some of things.
Baseball should do the same. Not that they're liable for anybody getting hurt. But they should be at least liable for injuries that could have been stopped if a nets there. They're free to ignore that risk if they think the payouts would be low and that putting up nets would lose them fan money. But they need to have at least a tiny bit of skin in the game.
|
They should not.
A liquor manufacturer makes liquor knowing full well that some people will use it irresponsibility and their product will cause death. When Johnny Lowlife drinks two packs of Busch Light and beats his wife - it's not Busch Light's fault nor should it be just because it is an expected outcome.
If some people sit in areas with a high propensity of foul balls - they know this risk before hand - and still choose to accept it. If they had no way of knowing this risk, perhaps they might have a case.