A federal judge in Oklahoma held that the trial failed to demonstrate that the Louisville Slugger in question was any more dangerous than any other baseball bat, and the jury verdict could not stand. The fact that Oklahoma caps noneconomic damages surely made a difference here: without the threat of jackpot justice, the defendant could defend itself without fear of disproportionate liability. In contrast, a New Jersey case against the same defendant resulted in a multi-million-dollar settlement divorced from any showing of culpability. [Fisher via @overlawyered]
$1M baseball bat verdict overturned in Oklahoma
Related Entries:
- $14.5M New Jersey settlement over metal baseball bats
- Summers v. Tice revisited
- $48 million jackpot justice asbestos award for 86-year-old
- Around the web, June 23
- NYC lawsuit payouts: $560M in 2011
- The problems of product liability
- Federal constitutional challenge to Texas tort reform rejected
- More on 2006 Louisiana environmental law's jackpot justice
- Around the web, March 13
- Deep pocket files: Scott Simon and Harding Pharmacy
- "Porsche girl" lawsuit update
- A shocking concession by Svorny on medical malpractice caps
- Around the web, December 15
- Marie Gryphon cited for work on loser pays
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |




Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.