Texsox

Courts have ruled time and again that a business can still be held liable if it can be proven they are negligent. In this case, clearly they were not. However, if there had been other mitigating circumstances, they might have been. IIRC one such case that was won by the fan was a minor league game when the fan was screened out by a vendor. The court ruled the vendor was partially responsible for the injury since the fan was subjected to a greater risk. This disclaimer, for example, does not allow a player to walk up and throw a bat at you As long as the stadium takes all usual and customary precautions they are safe. If they are negligent they are not. And we all are better off for it. John Daley, in an exhibition round, drunkenly turned and sailed a tee shot directly over some fans standing 15 yards away. If he had hit anyone you can bet he, the PGA, and others would have been found negligent. You do not have to give up your rights to attend a ball game. Our laws attempt to protect us from negligence.

Just pointing out that dodging a baseball at 90 mph, which was the estimated speed, isn't as easy as some would think. From the report I read, she saw the ball, and tried to get out of the way. And just because a business makes you sign a waiver, doesn't allow them to be negligent.

Then explain why the greatest players in baseball sometime mis-judge a ball and commit an error? Foul balls are generally curving and if you do not have experience with thrown or batted balls, you may actually dive into a ball in trying to get out of the way.

I'd bet they are then about the same but the interleague games are being compared to inner league play which includes equally compelling rivalries. If you take out the Sox v. Cubs series you should also take out Sox vs. Twins for example. Or Yankees-Mets take out Yankees Bo Sox. Or am I way off base?

I have freelanced for newspaper and magazines before. I cannot commit to any sort of regular feature of column. If you have a specific topic and style sheet or guidelines PM me and I'll see if I have the time.

I do not like that the schedule becomes "un-balanced". At the end each team in the division has played different teams. But I understand attendance spikes like 8% for those games so the fans must like it.

It's gonna be Ho' Made

Commece wins out. Figure out how to make money off of his singing talents

I was looking to vote Uribe

As an example 6'2" 400 pounds walking (everybody else had a vehicle which was also identified). And he can't get any lovin' Yo, Kap see any of your neighbors

IT's running really slow with wives checking to see if their husbands have been looking for love in all the wrong places. I was able to load the front page. Basically if you are busted (not just convicted) for prostitution, lewd behavior, public indeceny, etc. your photo is posted for all to see. Remember, innocent until proven guilty.

No, it was determined that foul balls in that area came too quickly and at such speed, that a club would be negligent if they did not protect their patrons. Same thing with hockey, why have the plexiglass above the boards? As was properly ruled (IMHO) where she was sitting she should have had ample time to move out of the way. There are acceptable levels of risk we take. Like the judge ruled this was the risk she took in coming to a game and sitting in those seats. I was pointing out that just printing a warning on the ticket does not absolve the park from all responsibility.

Link Direct to the site

I agree with the courts decision. But just a reminder. You can print whatever you want on the back of the ticket, but it has to be within the law. If for example, I am knowingly operating a faulty carnival ride and print on the ticket you assume all risks, I can still be sued and I would lose. Using the ball park as an instance. If Fenway decided to take down the net behind homeplate, and someone was hurt and sued, The Red Sox would probably lose the law suit. Another example, what if she was screened by an opera singing beer vendor who she asked to move away? Now is the team negligent? The organization cannot allow a hazard and hide behind a disclaimer. If they can be found to be negligent, the courts may decide in their favor.

God, I hope you are calling out to Steff or Fanof14 aka Queen Prawn

At the minimum a Paulie to Frank put out would be exciting in that Billy Koch pitching a ninth inning sort of way :puke

Continuing the theme If it was Nuke we would be reading about a stupid robber who was killed when his own gun was taken away and smashed up his nose as he tried to tie up a check cashing clerk. If it was CW the guy would have left with a Bible, a Eminem CD, and a promise to vote Kerry. Anthony would offer this description "he looked nothing like Billy Koch, NOTHING like him. Billy wouldn't do that . . ." Steff would just turn her monitor and show him :finger FlaSoxxJim would have had the guy drunk on his ass with some really good micro-brewery

I think Carter's personal integrity and intelligence paralysed him. He knew there were ways to negotiate with the terrorists and have the hostages released, and it would have given him a chance to be re-elected. He choose not to, knowing there is no end to the negotiations. Reagan's administration made a different decision for what was in the greater good. I'm not certain if it is fact or opinion that he knew the arms for hostages deal was happening (I believe he did). I also believe he knew that the American people would have made the switch if they knew. I also thought realized that Reagan benefited from a long line of less than inspiring Presidents. Besides Carter, we had Ford. I cannot remember which is Ford and which is Chevy Chase. How many times did Ford hit his head on Air Force 1? Then Nixon, then a guy who couldn't even win his own parties nomiation for re-election. Talk about being the right guy (Reagan) in the right time and place.

Southsider, Whether he pays attention to them or not, his political advisers are polling daily. Did Cinton listen to Americans via the polls more than Bush listens to Amercans through the polls? I think you are correct, Bush doesn't care what we think and it is his downfall.

I was just thinking about the leadership traits and personalities of the past few Presidents and have this observation. I am using the concept of saving for a rainy day and the fact we save when we see clouds and spend when we see sunshine. Carter was a bright, decent man but his Presidency was mired in a recession and the hostage crisis. The American public never sensed he could lead them to something better. Economu limped along with people saving, not spending. Reagan shows up with confidence, a swagger, a look the Evil Empire in the eye and not blink. He, and we, dream big dreams, we feel good and start spending. The economy goes up. It wasn't only policy initiatives, they only had a small part in it, maybe not at all. It was Reagans personality that drove the boom. I'm confident, I'm bullet proof, I'm buying a new car, house, and jelly bellys. Then Bush 41. Man he seemed tired before he got in office. He wasn't President Reagan, and I doubt anyone could have been. Confidence lagged as did personal spending. Clinton arrives to the beat of Fleetwood Mac. After a decade of old guys in office, the bulk of the populations has a sax playing, rock loving, charismatic leader. Face it, a lot of ladies thought Hillary was the luckies gal in the whole development. We spent. The sunshine was out, we were feeling alive and good. Nothing was going to destroy that mood, not even the growing threat of terrorism that was knocking at our door. Now we have Bush 43. Damn he's likable but about the most intellectually challenged President in a while. He entered office after a court ballot battle, without the popular vote. He was not Clinton, and in many ways that was good, but he failed to energize the masses. Voters don't look to "leading economic indicators" to determine if they buy that new car, a new wardrobe, etc. They look internally and how they feel.

I am so frightened by that. I stopped hanging music posters when I was 20. Tell me it is at least framed and not stuck with four mis-matched thumb tacks

I believe that was a Drudge link. Maybe I view Drudge differently. I see his portal as a collection of hot links. I was specifically mentioning items that appear under his by-line. Wasn't the alledged Kerry affair a Washington Post or London Times link?

Interesting then that he didn't stop Bin Laden. I guess the public didn't want him to? If your guy polls a lot, he's genuinly interested in what the people who voted him in think, the other guy can't make up his mind. Politicians have been polling for decades, Clinton may have set a new standard, but Bush has kept it up. I think it's a good idea he knows what Americans are thinking, not just his advisers. I view the President as much for his personal traits as for his policy initiatives. Clinton, on a human level, failed in almost every area I value and judge a leader. His moral compass was so failed as to not be believed. He sold me one too many lies and for that, I cannot forgive. I would rather have a President of high moral character who I do not agree with politically then a morally bankrupt adulterer who I do agree with. We have checks and balances in our government. The President has great influence on our moods and behaviors, whether we notice it or not. The country takes on the personality of our leaders. I am embarrased by my fellow Democrates who continue to defend him. Having said that, between the lines he was very good. I agreed with many things he did and many more he tried to do. I wish he was able to do more with health care reforms.

That is another interesting point. One answer is more, not less, independent news outlets. Yet, the GOP has voted time and again for large corporate takeovers and mergers, while DEMS have fought to keep the restrictions on ownership. It use to be that one person or company could own multiple TV, Radio, and newspapers in the same area. In the interest of competition, the GOP has been steadily easing these restrictions.

The reason to have a Dem speak is all about celebrating a great American life, not a great Republican life. I think they should have had President Carter speak. IMHO Clinton swapped a blow job for these sorts of honors. This was not a Reagan family funeral, this was America's funeral for a great man. All of America. Make no mistake, politics transends everything in Washington. This is every major league ballpark in one. This is placing the most diehard Yankee and Red Sox fans in the same stadium for every game. The restaurants you go to are Dem or Rep. You have to be carefull what color car you buy. So to think that this wasn't planned under the backdrop of politics is niave. CW, say what you will about the Drudge Report, but I use that as my portal for news links and after daily reading for 18 months, I have found only one mistake, and in that he linked to a local news channel that was reporting something as fact and it was not.