About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

115 Penn St. L. Rev. 517 (2010-2011)
The Breaking Point: Examining the Potential Liability of Maple Baseball Bat Manufacturers for Injuries Caused by Broken Maple Baseball Bats

handle is hein.journals/dlr115 and id is 521 raw text is: The Breaking Point: Examining the Potential Liability of Maple Baseball Bat Manufacturers for Injuries Caused by Broken Maple Baseball Bats Matthew A. Westover* I. INTRODUCTION Both participating in and watching sporting events involves some risk of injury.' The shelves of law libraries are filled with cases involving injuries sustained by players, coaches, and spectators at baseball games,2 hockey games,3 golf outings,4 and numerous other recreational events.5 Some of these injuries are attributable to new technology designed to increase player performance.6 Participants in athletic competitions are constantly looking to gain a competitive advantage over their opposition. In order to gain this competitive edge, players have resorted to such things as performance enhancing drugs and stealing signs and plays from opposing teams. One of the most effective ways, however, players seek to gain a competitive edge is through improvements in player equipment. Equipment manufacturers have responded by creating new technologies designed to * Juris Doctor Candidate, Class of 2011, The Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University; B.A., cum laude, York College of Pennsylvania, 2007. The author would like to thank everyone who contributed their valuable time on this piece, particularly Justin Bollinger for his feedback and guidance throughout the comment writing process. 1. See generally Sanchez v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 128 Cal. Rptr.2d 529 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002); Vines v. Birmingham Baseball Club, Inc., 450 So.2d 455 (Ala. 1984). 2. See Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 635 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). 3. See Nemarnik v. Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club, L.P., 127 Cal. Rptr.2d 10 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). 4. See Am. Golf Corp. v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. Rptr.2d 683 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). 5. See Branco v. Kearny Moto Park, Inc., 43 Cal Rptr.2d 392 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (motocross); Sunday v. Stratton Corp., 390 A.2d 398 (Vt. 1978) (skiing). 6. See Sanchez, 128 Cal. Rptr.2d at 529 (Injury caused by high performance metal baseball bat). 517

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most