Mets Fan Whose Face Got Broken by Exploding Bat Is Suing

On August 8th, 2007, James Falzon was at Shea Stadium sitting in the second row along the third-base line with his dad, 11-year-old son, and 9-year-old nephew. They were there to watch the Mets battle the Atlanta Braves, and the home team was trailing in the bottom of the 7th inning when Mets second baseman Luis Castillo hit a fly ball. "I said to my dad, 'This is going to tie the game!'", Falzon told the Daily News at the time. "Then bam! I got hit with the bat."

Castillo's bat, which was made out of maple, exploded when he hit the ball. In an interview with the Post, Falzon explained, "I was watching the ball, and [the shards] hit me in the face. It knocked me off my chair." That's what you get for keeping your eye on the ball! The injuries left Falzon with massive bleeding, a broken nose and eye socket, and permanent metal plates and pins. "It broke my whole face," he said. But the Mets went on to win 4-3, so there's that to be grateful for.

More ballplayers have been using maple bats since Barry Bonds relied on them to hit a record-breaking 73 homeruns during the 2001 season. Falzon's lawsuit, filed on Friday in Manhattan Supreme Court, argues that maple bats put people at risk because they shatter more easily than ash bats, which "typically crack while maple bats have a tendency to break apart or explode." In 2008, Major League Baseball concluded that maple bats are three times as likely to explode as traditional ash bats, and has since set new production standards for maple bats.

Falzon is suing the Mets, Castillo, Major League Baseball, the maker of the bat, and ex-Met catcher Ramon Castro, who had lent his teammate the fateful bat. He's seeking unspecified money damages for his physical injuries, plus cash for the trauma endured by his son when he saw his dad's face smashed in.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in News on August 9, 2010 5:26 PM

Comments [rss]

ken

I always called them "broken bats." But let's call them EXPLODING BATS and, jeez, maybe this guy has a point after all.

It's part of the game, dude. Walk it off, walk it off...

Gertah

The Mets should have offered to pay this guy's medical bills and then some, by now (even from a publicity standpoint, if not out of a sense of compassion). If they haven't, then shame on them. As a baseball fan, I can imagine that it would be hard to decide to sue a team for which you have affection, and feel loyal to. I imagine that you might also fear the ridicule and hatred of other fans of the team. I doubt that this was a decision that he came to with ease.

In any case, no baseball fan, and no poster on this board, for that matter, would ever expect to risk such painful and extensive injuries while sitting in their seat at a major league stadium. And any fan would have a right to their day in court for a judgment on liability in such circumstances. This could very well become the precursor to major changes in bat production and MLB regulations.

soxinthecity

You are right that the Mets should pay the guys medical bills, for public relation reasons if nothing else. What happened to this guy was a freak injury, one that could have easily happened to me, or anyone else.

That being said, having read the back of my ticket, I know that it is possible that I could suffer a serious injury at a sporting event. I doubt that this guy is going to win any money, even with the maple bat argument, since the disclaimer seems clearly written to me.

annaka700

Exactly...I don't blame him for suing whatsoever after having such a horrific injury.

kazubes

Doesn't matter if fans assume risk of injury by sitting at the stadium, smokers assume risk of cancer but they still walk away with jury settlements from their lawsuits. This guy should get some money back for his trouble given that busted face for sure

Homer2323

You really dont know the law. You assume all risk by attending the game. People have, a fan in LA recently, been severely injured at games, and they get nothing. No team will ever voluntarily pay out either, bc you set a precedent. If you dont want to risk injury than dont go to the game.

Politburo

The thing is, the risk of going to a baseball game has changed due to these bats. For the past 100 years, it was extremely unlikely to get hit with a bat in the stands, and even if you were hit, the risk injury was less than now.

This doesn't mean the stadium, team, or players are magically liable. But these things just aren't as black and white as the back of the ticket makes you think it is. Complicating the legal issue is that MLB officially recognized a problem with maple bats after this incident occurred, even though a 2005 study concluded maple bats were more likely to shatter.

Unfortunately it takes a death to change things in this country. The only question is if the death will be a fan or a player/coach.

mlwdc

he assumed the risk of injury, it doesn't matter what the bat is made out of. But then again, if I were the mets I'd want to avoid a protracted legal battle over this (horrible publicity), so maybe his strategy will work and they'll settle.

interlard

If we had healthcare, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, he wouldn't need to sue for tens of thousands of dollars to cover his medical bills (that could easily bankrupt some) and the tickets would be cheaper because the massive insurance required wouldn't have to be passed onto the fans.

I'd suggest that the Republicans who blocked healthcare get some free tickets to the games, in the hope that a few of them get some first-hand experience of these injuries, but they already have public healthcare. It's just the voters who aren't allowed to have it.

C

He does have health care. He is not suing for medical expenses. He's suing for his injuries and his son's trauma . Nobody told him to buy tickets so close to the field.

fuboy

Okay, first off, we have health care. It's not socialized, which is what I think you meant. Even is we did, he'd still have to pay. In countries with socialized medicine, the patient still has to pay a portion of the costs. It's not like if you move to Canada you'll never have to pay another cent to visit a doctor or seek treatment.

Second, the most recent health care bill that the republicans blocked was for people injured (short and long term) from 9/11 and inhaling the toxic air from the smoldering WTC site. It was mostly a monetary payout, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. It wouldn't have affected this man in the least.

Third, You sound very passionate about the subject - which I admire. But, you don't sound like you know what you're talking about. We can't simply flip a switch and restructure the cost / billing / insurance of our country's medical system. It's one of those 'Redo our way of life' things like removing corruption from government. It should be done, but it's going to take a lot of work and compromise.

pd2009

Pretty shitty not to cover the guys bills and lost work expense. What percentage of a single day's seat revenue would that take? How much in tax breaks did the stadium get? So fans are three times as likely to get hit by bats, paying 3x the ticket price, and paying for taxes to support the stadium. Welfare bums.

soxinthecity

I guess he didn't read the disclaimer on the back of his ticket stub. He assumed all risk of being hit by balls, bats, etc, when he walked through the turnstiles.

Mr Mel

That really doesn't mean much. Those signs at the cleaners, laundries and shoe repair shops that say "Not Responsible for Goods Left Over 30 Days are meaningless. The law requires the bailiff (bailee) ? to hold the goods for 7 years and a day and then advertise the disposal sale.

GOP

ur obviously not a lawyer. the signs do mean much. look up ny law on this issue. using ur analogy no one shld stop at stop signs bc repair shops have signs too and those signs dont mean much.

TKaisen

You are obviously not one who reads legal decisions. There are piles of precedent protecting ballparks from these types of injuries. Look up "inherent risks".