Lawyer Question: Baseball Edition (1 Viewer)

[bills025]

On Friday my 10 year old son and a friend were at our neighborhood park playing baseball when my son hit a ball and it broke the friends nose.

My son calls me, we get his friend home to his house and the dad doesn't seem to concerned about the nose. I know it's broken but figure he'll be fine after seeing a doctor.

On Monday the boy isn't at school so we go by, no one is home, same thing yesterday. Today my son comes home and tells me his buddy had surgery, I don't know any more details.

What kind of Liability are we looking at?

 

[belljr]

If the parents aren't dooshes none

 

[-fish-]

On Friday my 10 year old son and a friend were at our neighborhood park playing baseball when my son hit a ball and it broke the friends nose.

My son calls me, we get his friend home to his house and the dad doesn't seem to concerned about the nose. I know it's broken but figure he'll be fine after seeing a doctor.

On Monday the boy isn't at school so we go by, no one is home, same thing yesterday. Today my son comes home and tells me his buddy had surgery, I don't know any more details.

What kind of Liability are we looking at?

got homeowners insurance?

 

[Don Quixote]

It's assumption of risk.

 

[-fish-]

It's assumption of risk.

LOL

 

[ChiefD]

If my son's nose was broken in such a manner, I would not sue or expect any damages, payments, etc.

 

[T Bell]

It's assumption of risk.

That was the old rule (which exists in some states still), but nowadays it depends upon the state law, but while there's some truth in that, it's not an absolute defense and you'd need more info about how it happened. If the kid hitting the ball was acting unreasonably, e.g. hitting the ball without the other kid looking or something, then there could be negligence.

 

[dparker713]

It's assumption of risk.

That was the old rule (which exists in some states still), but nowadays it depends upon the state law, but while there's some truth in that, it's not an absolute defense and you'd need more info about how it happened. If the kid hitting the ball was acting unreasonably, e.g. hitting the ball without the other kid looking or something, then there could be negligence.

Well, acting unreasonably for a kid of his age.

 

[T Bell]

It's assumption of risk.

That was the old rule (which exists in some states still), but nowadays it depends upon the state law, but while there's some truth in that, it's not an absolute defense and you'd need more info about how it happened. If the kid hitting the ball was acting unreasonably, e.g. hitting the ball without the other kid looking or something, then there could be negligence.

Well, acting unreasonably for a kid of his age.

Pretty much. Absent some shocking fact, two kids playing baseball together in a reasonable way shouldn't lead to liability even with that injury.

 

[bills025]

It's assumption of risk.

That was the old rule (which exists in some states still), but nowadays it depends upon the state law, but while there's some truth in that, it's not an absolute defense and you'd need more info about how it happened. If the kid hitting the ball was acting unreasonably, e.g. hitting the ball without the other kid looking or something, then there could be negligence.

Thanks to everyone for their responses. I do have homeowners, and I as a parent wouldn't sue either. How would they prove something like that? eta.( I see you are covering that, thanks again)

Also I'm wondering what to do for the family and little guy in particular? Or if I should do anything at all. ( Something = Baked good, or get well card and candy, etc.)

 

[Fennis]

buy the kid a bottle of booze

 

[johnnycakes]

And have a stripper deliver it.

 

[dparker713]

It's assumption of risk.

That was the old rule (which exists in some states still), but nowadays it depends upon the state law, but while there's some truth in that, it's not an absolute defense and you'd need more info about how it happened. If the kid hitting the ball was acting unreasonably, e.g. hitting the ball without the other kid looking or something, then there could be negligence.

Well, acting unreasonably for a kid of his age.

Pretty much. Absent some shocking fact, two kids playing baseball together in a reasonable way shouldn't lead to liability even with that injury.

Even if the kid was negligent, the OP probably wouldn't have any parental liability. Though, that's highly state specific.

 

[sports_fan]

If the parents aren't dooshes none

 

[T Bell]

It's assumption of risk.

That was the old rule (which exists in some states still), but nowadays it depends upon the state law, but while there's some truth in that, it's not an absolute defense and you'd need more info about how it happened. If the kid hitting the ball was acting unreasonably, e.g. hitting the ball without the other kid looking or something, then there could be negligence.

Well, acting unreasonably for a kid of his age.

Pretty much. Absent some shocking fact, two kids playing baseball together in a reasonable way shouldn't lead to liability even with that injury.

Even if the kid was negligent, the OP probably wouldn't have any parental liability. Though, that's highly state specific.

This is the key.

I'd just do what any friend would do if their kid was hurt and be supportive.

If it ends up resulting in some sort of claim, then consult with an attorney because your state's law will govern this.