Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 14314143)

I more or less support the view of baseball teams being able to continue without it, but if they want to spend the money and put it up. That is on them. What I don't like is the repeated social pressure media tries to put on stuff like this. Basically, society latches onto a non-important issue compared to the grand scheme of things, and bullies said organization or person until they do what they want. And it's all based on an emotional response that lacks logic.

Why doesn't the media put pressure on cars? Bears? Gym equipment? Escalators? Escalators injure 2100 children and 2600 senior citizens a year.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14314164)

Because gym equipment and facilities that use escalators assume liability if something bad happens. Which means as risk management, they have incentive to try to find ways to make these things safer. Nobody expects that any of these things can be 100% safe. But the thought is that most companies are at least trying.

Baseball has an unusual rule where they assume almost no liability for a fan getting hurt. They have had no motivation to make the game safer for fans because they don't pay consequences if they fail in doing that.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 14314203)

You would be surprised. Nobody assumes any liability unless a civil court says they do. I would imagine the majority of cases with escalators are people with loose clothing getting caught or people avoiding not in service signs - all of which would make the owner of said property not liable.

There is no reason to negotiate with the injured party unless there is a precedent or case law supporting that you will lose in court.

Originally Posted by DaFace (Post 14314211)

Sure, but that's clearly different than a legally-binding agreement with your ticket purchase that specifically says the stadium and team isn't responsible if you get hurt.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 14314203)

You would be surprised. Nobody assumes any liability unless a civil court says they do.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14314215)

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.

Originally Posted by BWillie (Post 14314222)

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.

Originally Posted by loochy (Post 14313927)

Indeed. However, they'd only have to pay attention for about 3 seconds every two minutes thanks to the snail pace of the game.

Originally Posted by MMXcalibur (Post 14313382)

The NHL added nets above the glass on each end of the rink and you can barely notice them when you watch the play live.

I'm willing to bet this is the same here.

You chodes simply hate change.