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 nearly 2,700 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 with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?