A lawsuit filed by James G. Falzon and outmoded given the current state of play and the trajectory of bats and baseballs. He further argued that because of the way that maple bats shatter, a spectator does not have adequate time to react and therefore faces an enhanced risk of injury. The court was not persuaded by these arguments and dismissed Falzon's negligence action (I was one of the representatives for the defendants). The court held that the issue was not whether maple bats are more likely to break than ash bats, because the risk of injury to spectators who occupy unprotected areas remains the same. The court declined to extend the limited duty of care or to require the owners and operators of a baseball stadium to protect additional areas of the ballpark with protective screening. The court noted that to hold otherwise would essentially render them insurers of a spectator's safety - a standard the court expressly declined to adopt.
