Hit By Ball In Park, Ca

[faziz]

What is the name of your state? CA

My son was playing soccer with friends on one side of a public park. On the other side, a group of people were playing baseball in an open field (not designated for either soccer or baseball). One baseball line drive hit my son on the temple. He was ok at first but later had a bit of a dizzy spell. We took him to the emergency room and all x rays came out clean. What can we sue for? Emergency room costs or more? Please advise!

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? CA

My son was playing soccer with friends on one side of a public park. On the other side, a group of people were playing baseball in an open field (not designated for either soccer or baseball). One baseball line drive hit my son on the temple. He was ok at first but later had a bit of a dizzy spell. We took him to the emergency room and all x rays came out clean. What can we sue for? Emergency room costs or more? Please advise!

Q: What can we sue for?

A: Since you did not indicate any serious permanent physical damages, the answer is nothing.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? CA

My son was playing soccer with friends on one side of a public park. On the other side, a group of people were playing baseball in an open field (not designated for either soccer or baseball). One baseball line drive hit my son on the temple. He was ok at first but later had a bit of a dizzy spell. We took him to the emergency room and all x rays came out clean. What can we sue for? Emergency room costs or more? Please advise!

You asked the wrong question. Think about it then come back with the RIGHT question.

 

[faziz]

Sorry - I thought I was clear. There was no longterm physical damage (thank God), however we did end up paying >$500 in emergency care. So can we ask for reimbursement of that at the very least?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Sorry - I thought I was clear. There was no longterm physical damage (thank God), however we did end up paying >$500 in emergency care. So can we ask for reimbursement of that at the very least?

O.K. I'll answer your question first then I'll answer the CORRECT question.

First, yes, you can ask for reimbursement for the emergency care costs.

Now, the real question:

Who is at-fault?

Guess what? no one. This was an accident. You knew, or had reason to know, that there was no protection from the ball field to other parts of the park. you have no proof that the act of hitting the ball was malicious or the person who hit the ball INTENDED to hit your child. AND, it was within your control to remove your child from the area due to the possibility of danger from others in the park. You did not and assummed the risk of such.

Therefore, you have no case against anyone you might sue.

It was an accident, plain and simple. Read your homeowner's insurance policy and see if you might be covered under it.

 

[tranquility]

There are not enough facts to determine liablity. Can I go to a small park and start driving golf balls? Sure. Am I responsible for any damage I might cause from where they land? Yes. Is hitting baseballs different? How so? Doesn't it kinda depend on the facts to determine the reckessness of the action?

Let's say I start walking around swinging my arms wildly. If I do it in an open field with no one else around, no worries. If I do it in a subway car it is different.

How big was the park? How far was your child? How crowded was the park? Was there a baseball-designated area available? Were they hitting towards others or away? There are many questions to ask to determine liablity and in the end it will be up to a judge or jury.

(By the way, how are you going to find these guys if you do sue them? Do you already know them? If so, was there something else going on beyond kids just playing?)

 

[loveumms]

Would you be responsible if your child kicked a soccer ball and it happened to hit someone in the head?

When you go to a park, you are assuming a certain amount of reponsibility of yourself and your children.

 

[shortbus]

Belize is wrong -- "intent" is immaterial in tort law.
Seniorjudge is wrong -- you don't need permanent injuries to recover. You had medical costs, that's enough.

If baseball was prohibited in the park by law, then the baseball players were negligent and you can recover from whomever hit the ball (assuming you know who that is).

If baseball was permitted, then when you took your son onto the field, you assumed the risks of being near a baseball field, which includes getting hit by a baseball. Just like people who park next to little league fields assume the risk of windshield damage from fly balls.

I don't think the size of the park, or direction of the game is relevant.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Belize is wrong -- "intent" is immaterial in tort law.
Seniorjudge is wrong -- you don't need permanent injuries to recover. You had medical costs, that's enough.

If baseball was prohibited in the park by law, then the baseball players were negligent and you can recover from whomever hit the ball (assuming you know who that is).

If baseball was permitted, then when you took your son onto the field, you assumed the risks of being near a baseball field, which includes getting hit by a baseball. Just like people who park next to little league fields assume the risk of windshield damage from fly balls.

I don't think the size of the park, or direction of the game is relevant.

Read my reply again. Intent was only one small part of the answer. The fact remains, the poster has never returned to answer the question whether or not playing ball in the park was prohitited, whether or not the game was proceeding when she/he entered the park or any other facts regarding the incident.

As for intent, I guess you never heard of Intentional tort, An injury inflicted by positive, willful, and aggressive conduct, or by design, as opposed to an injury caused by negligence or resulting from an accident.

 

[shortbus]

By capitalizing "INTENDED", one might reasonably conclude you meant to emphasize it.

Yes, I am familiar with intentional torts. Getting hit with an errant baseball is not an intentional tort. So you can cut & paste all you like from http://www.otto-graph.com/samples/3/tortlaw.html, it still isn't relevant.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

the fact remains, there is no answer that is more relevant than another simply based on the facts, or lack thereof, in this post.

The only 'fact' that might be relevant is the poster saying the park was not designed for soccer or baseball and her son was playing soccer in the same field.

So, until she comes back with more facts, not even you can give a qualified RIGHT answer, no matter how much you believe you can.