[The Horrible Esthete]

Fans who have brought litigation against baseball clubs for injuries due to batted balls and other projectiles have almost universally seen their cases dropped due to the assumption-of-risk doctrine. Every team that sees an injury at its stadium, no matter how serious, fights helping with medical costs because of the implications throughout the rest of the industry.

Well I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that if these bats are breaking more often (and in a more dangerous fashion) than has happened historically in baseball, then she would have a case that this was beyond the "reasonable" risk threshold that would normally apply in such assumption-of-risk situations. Then she could try to show that MLB knew (or reasonably should have known) of the increased risk, and failed to disclose it.

I could see them extending the netting though - that's what hockey did after that girl was killed by a puck in Columbus a few years back.

I don't know about a suit....as mentioned in the article, MLB plasters the "ticketholder assumes the risk" clause all over everything -- even tickets themselves. If just one bat could break and possibly cause injury to a fan, then theoretically the risk is such that ANY bat can break and cause injury.

That said, MLB should heavily consider banning the maple bats. It seems like one is busting with every single at-bat. It lengthens the game, disrupts the pitchers' rhythm, and distracts fielders from making plays. You'd think the League would be just as concerned about the safety of players, coaches & umpires as that of the fans, as well as game-flow.

But I absolutely abhor the idea of extending the netting; if the fans occupying the good seats close to the action aren't paying attention with every pitch, then they should sit in the OF or higher tier where they belong -- with the "casual" fans.