|
3437 REVIEW DENIED If the use of aluminum baseball bats increased the inherent risks of baseball, primary assumption of the risk does not bar recovery by a pitcher injured when struck by a ball hit with such a bat; whether use of aluminum baseball bats increased the inherent risks of baseball is a question of fact; declarations by a forensic sports expert and the inventor of an aluminum bat expressing the opinion that use of the bat increased the launch speed of a ball struck with it and thereby caused injury to a plaintiff struck by the ball were sufficient to raise questions of fact as to causation.CitationSANCHEZ v HILLERICH & BRADSBY (Aluminum Bat) 104 CA4 703 [See: Knight v Jewett 3 C4 296, T/AT 10/92; Branco v Kearny 37 CA4 184, T/AT 9/95; Bush v Parents 17 CA4 322, T/AT 9/93]
|
|
