Heads Up

[rlsheehan]

I'd highly recommend reading this. If a ruling here goes the wrong way, then your university could become directly and legally responsible for your personal behavior. The more legal liability they have, the more they're going to crack down on you guys.

If an award is steep enough, some schools may decide it's too much risk to even have fraternities.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32413490/ns/us_news-education/

[Toucan]

Judge Z - Who at the fraternity or from the university physically forced your son to drink?

Lawyers: Blah-blah blah - No one.

Judge Z - Case dismissed. In addition, I'm recommending the DA to investigate the parents for criminal neglect as they have obviously failed to teach their children personal responsibility and accountability.

Because even if they think they did, it is clear that by filing this case that they themselves do not believe in the concept and it is highly likely that they did not properly raise their children.

I’m also reporting them over to the Department of Homeland Security (or at least Fox news) for a criminal investigation of their ties to Communist and other subversive organizations because if they truly do believe the university (state) is responsible then they are socialists.

[CharlesHedrick]

This is why we partake in Sam Spady projects,

[neville]

No way this goes the wrong way.

This would make the school liable for ANYTHING that happens within ANY extra-curricular activity aka if someone falls and breaks their leg on a trip with a school sanctioned club.

[gmwong]

No way this goes the wrong way.

This would make the school liable for ANYTHING that happens within ANY extra-curricular activity aka if someone falls and breaks their leg on a trip with a school sanctioned club.


Or just walking to class. Or because I got the ****s from fall festival because they had a poster up and I went.

[rlsheehan]

No way this goes the wrong way.

This would make the school liable for ANYTHING that happens within ANY extra-curricular activity aka if someone falls and breaks their leg on a trip with a school sanctioned club.
The great, and terrible thing about our judicial system is that there is nothing so much as God in his Heaven as a judge on the bench, and juries aren't much better. Consider:

January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store.
The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little snot was Mrs. Robertson's son.

October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in it's owner's fenced-in yard.
The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

The reason people bring frivolous law suits is because they know they will usually either win, or at least get some sort of settlement out of the people they are suing to avoid court costs and lawyer fees. Even if the school doesn't fight it and settles out of court, they've set a precedent that other schools will be looking at pretty hard, especially with endowments being hit so hard by the economy.

[JakeTheSnake]

what ever happened to the days when a judge would put his foot down and say f@#k this, i'm not going to allow you to clog up our legal system with these dumb, and frivolous lawsuits? my understanding was that judges are allowed to do that, am i wrong?

[neville]

The great, and terrible thing about our judicial system is that there is nothing so much as God in his Heaven as a judge on the bench, and juries aren't much better. Consider:

January 2000: Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas was awarded $780,000 by a jury of her peers after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running inside a furniture store.
The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving little snot was Mrs. Robertson's son.

October 1999: Jerry Williams of Little Rock was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in it's owner's fenced-in yard.
The award was less than sought because the jury felt the dog might have been just a little provoked at the time by Mr. Williams who was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun.

The reason people bring frivolous law suits is because they know they will usually either win, or at least get some sort of settlement out of the people they are suing to avoid court costs and lawyer fees. Even if the school doesn't fight it and settles out of court, they've set a precedent that other schools will be looking at pretty hard, especially with endowments being hit so hard by the economy.
This is why I don't like jury trials in civil suits.

[JakeTheSnake]

what ever happened to the days when a judge would put his foot down and say f@#k this, i'm not going to allow you to clog up our legal system with these dumb, and frivolous lawsuits? my understanding was that judges are allowed to do that, am i wrong?

that was a serious question. are judges still allowed to do that?

[neville]

that was a serious question. are judges still allowed to do that?
No idea, I've only studied Criminal Law, not Civil Law

[Toucan]

that was a serious question. are judges still allowed to do that?

IANAL (But play one on the web)

The answer is yes. Within the bounds of the law.

Unlike the theatrics one might find in a criminal case dramatized on TV (surprise witness, defense evidence introduced at the last minute) civil cases are usually boring.

Unless there extraordinary circumstances all the evidence is introduced up front and all parties get to see it and there are a lot of pre-trial conferences.

Also remember that the standard of proof is lower: Preponderance of the Evidence (51%) vs “Beyond a Reasonable and Substantial Doubt.” (Damn near 100%) and there is no Grand Jury pre-filter.


For the purpose of discussion, let's walk through the “pleading” part before we even get to pre-trial....
A plaintiff files a complaint looking for a claim that can be remedied.
Formal notifications are made and the defendant often presents a rebuttal, cursory evidence or facts, and likely a number of motions to dismiss.
Judge does a basic sanity check as well as ensures there is standing (jurisdiction, statute of limitation, legal grounds, etc.)
The rest you can read for yourself here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_trial)

Notice I didn't go past step three. Unless there is some information missing, some bias (or incompetence) of the judge, or some crazy law I just don't understand how it could be allowed to proceed as is.

Bonus Discussion

In Judge LOTH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uc3jMgvmC8)'s Court this would never make it to pre-trail as I don't believe there are reasonable grounds to sue the university for the actions of adults not located on their physical property not operating at a university sanctioned event. Even If I believed they had suspicions of problems. They are not in the enforcement business that is the job of the police. (And, frankly, this boy's parents.)

However, they would be allowed to sue the fraternity and members, officers, party goers, maybe the property owner. Why? I could see a number of good argument if any were true:


Made booze available to someone under the age of 21.
Other potential illegal activity
Physically forced him to drink.
Were negligent when he passed out.
Substantial actions happened on their property.
But one wouldn't imagine there wouldn't be much money in suing a bunch of poor college kids....

[Dennis Dowling]

Another article I found about the lawsuit:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_13046274

Another hazing lawsuit:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/597/story/864538.html

[Cricket]

Unlike the theatrics one might find in a criminal case dramatized on TV (surprise witness, defense evidence introduced at the last minute) civil cases are usually boring.



Thank God for the discovery rule.