(08-12-2020 01:23 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 01:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I bow to your lawyerly knowledge, but about the bolded parts .... First, how can the school assume a duty to protect athletes from CV when even the leading health agencies of the world are not sure about how to do that generally?

A plaintiff's attorney would likely argue as a starting point that there's certainly a duty of care taken on by the university with respect to the health of the athletes in general, which is why, even in pre-pandemic times, that they have medical staff present on the field along with specialized medical personnel and trainers specifically for athletes that aren't available to the rest of the student population. From there, the argument is that this duty of care extends to taking steps to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. Is the university testing? Are they following medical advice along with various regulatory guidelines? Those are all factors that are going to come into play.

Quote:And since everyone, athletes included, knows about CV, aren't they assuming the risk when they decide to play? Nobody is forcing them to play, and they know the risks, just like they know they might become paralyzed for life if they get hit on the football field.

This is why there's a labor movement in college sports and whether an athlete is defined as an employee is so tenuous. Is someone "forced" to go continue going to their job at Walmart even if they don't feel safe? Technically, no. However, the practical reality is that they would lose their job in that situation.

Likewise, is a football player going to keep his scholarship if the school moves forward with playing but he doesn't want to play due to the pandemic? If not, then that "choice" might be illusory and looks more like a constructive dismissal in an employee-employer relationship. That opens up a whole other set of can of worms for the university. As much as the "We Want to Play" crowd seems to play up the potential unionization of players that would want to play, the reality is that it's the opposite of constructively requiring athletes to play when they *don't* feel safe that gives a much greater risk of unionization and moving even more towards an employer-employee relationship.

Quote:If I was on a civil jury (would this be a jury trial if an athlete sued?), I would have a hard time finding a school liable for CV transmission. This isn't like say a poisonous substance in the uniforms that the students aren't aware of that schools are hiding from them. If you choose to play, you choose to assume the risk, IMO.

You can be assured that any plaintiff's attorney would want this in front of a jury. As an attorney, I would definitely not rely on an argument that "choosing to play" somehow absolves liability for the university. This would be particularly the case if there are medical experts advising the university that it's not safe to play. It would be slike stating that it's an employee's "choice" to enter into an asbestos-filled employer-owned building that the employer has advised the employee about. I wouldn't want to have to defend that set of facts in front of a jury AT ALL.

A general follow up on that.

Why in the hell would anyone want or think it reasonable to want the players (18-22 year olds) to assume all of the risk of Covid related problems, known and unknown, temporary or permanent?

Are these kids sacrificial lambs for the sport?

I have seen dire reports that schools would lose an average of $78 million if football is not played in 2020.

Why should an 18-22 year old kid bear all of the risk of Covid in return for a scholarship versus a school sponsoring the sport and making that revenue from the activity?

Shouldn't the school bear the burden versus the kid on a scholarship ?

I was a civil defense attorney whose career involved defending tort claims and even I think that is bull****.

The players who are concerned have the right to opt out.
The players get to play, which most enjoy.
The players get to play and improve their possibilities for getting paid in the NFL.
The players get far more intensive medical oversight than they would not playing.

All of this ranting about the players is bs--the real issue is whether schools should be encouraging crowds of 25-50k to come together. Big crowds increase the spread of the virus whether you are doing it for a good cause or not. If you want to yell at the admins, its that they are putting students and alums and communities at risk in order to generate TV $$s.

(08-11-2020 07:22 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  Just more gloom and doomers trying to drag the lovers of college football down a negative path...............

For those that are downplaying or not acknowledging COVID-19 they will say:

1. This medical condition is a hoax.
2. It's another over reaction to the virus.
3. You gonna die of something anyways so players might as well go while doing something they love.
4. Just throw so dirt on it and keep it moving!

You left out... “Walk it off”

(08-12-2020 05:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 01:23 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 01:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I bow to your lawyerly knowledge, but about the bolded parts .... First, how can the school assume a duty to protect athletes from CV when even the leading health agencies of the world are not sure about how to do that generally?

A plaintiff's attorney would likely argue as a starting point that there's certainly a duty of care taken on by the university with respect to the health of the athletes in general, which is why, even in pre-pandemic times, that they have medical staff present on the field along with specialized medical personnel and trainers specifically for athletes that aren't available to the rest of the student population. From there, the argument is that this duty of care extends to taking steps to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. Is the university testing? Are they following medical advice along with various regulatory guidelines? Those are all factors that are going to come into play.

Quote:And since everyone, athletes included, knows about CV, aren't they assuming the risk when they decide to play? Nobody is forcing them to play, and they know the risks, just like they know they might become paralyzed for life if they get hit on the football field.

This is why there's a labor movement in college sports and whether an athlete is defined as an employee is so tenuous. Is someone "forced" to go continue going to their job at Walmart even if they don't feel safe? Technically, no. However, the practical reality is that they would lose their job in that situation.

Likewise, is a football player going to keep his scholarship if the school moves forward with playing but he doesn't want to play due to the pandemic? If not, then that "choice" might be illusory and looks more like a constructive dismissal in an employee-employer relationship. That opens up a whole other set of can of worms for the university. As much as the "We Want to Play" crowd seems to play up the potential unionization of players that would want to play, the reality is that it's the opposite of constructively requiring athletes to play when they *don't* feel safe that gives a much greater risk of unionization and moving even more towards an employer-employee relationship.

Quote:If I was on a civil jury (would this be a jury trial if an athlete sued?), I would have a hard time finding a school liable for CV transmission. This isn't like say a poisonous substance in the uniforms that the students aren't aware of that schools are hiding from them. If you choose to play, you choose to assume the risk, IMO.

You can be assured that any plaintiff's attorney would want this in front of a jury. As an attorney, I would definitely not rely on an argument that "choosing to play" somehow absolves liability for the university. This would be particularly the case if there are medical experts advising the university that it's not safe to play. It would be slike stating that it's an employee's "choice" to enter into an asbestos-filled employer-owned building that the employer has advised the employee about. I wouldn't want to have to defend that set of facts in front of a jury AT ALL.

A general follow up on that.

Why in the hell would anyone want or think it reasonable to want the players (18-22 year olds) to assume all of the risk of Covid related problems, known and unknown, temporary or permanent?

Are these kids sacrificial lambs for the sport?

I have seen dire reports that schools would lose an average of $78 million if football is not played in 2020.

Why should an 18-22 year old kid bear all of the risk of Covid in return for a scholarship versus a school sponsoring the sport and making that revenue from the activity?

Shouldn't the school bear the burden versus the kid on a scholarship ?

I was a civil defense attorney whose career involved defending tort claims and even I think that is bull****.

The players who are concerned have the right to opt out.
The players get to play, which most enjoy.
The players get to play and improve their possibilities for getting paid in the NFL.
The players get far more intensive medical oversight than they would not playing.

All of this ranting about the players is bs--the real issue is whether schools should be encouraging crowds of 25-50k to come together. Big crowds increase the spread of the virus whether you are doing it for a good cause or not. If you want to yell at the admins, its that they are putting students and alums and communities at risk in order to generate TV $$s.

That "ranting" about players would be a successful argument before a jury, in my opinion.

Do you know who else thinks so? The Big Ten and the Pac 12.

If the schools are negligent and the players catch Covid, the players can sue.

Look, if you guys want to change the civil law system of liability in this country, have at it.

Good luck.

(08-12-2020 06:50 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 05:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 01:23 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 01:05 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I bow to your lawyerly knowledge, but about the bolded parts .... First, how can the school assume a duty to protect athletes from CV when even the leading health agencies of the world are not sure about how to do that generally?

A plaintiff's attorney would likely argue as a starting point that there's certainly a duty of care taken on by the university with respect to the health of the athletes in general, which is why, even in pre-pandemic times, that they have medical staff present on the field along with specialized medical personnel and trainers specifically for athletes that aren't available to the rest of the student population. From there, the argument is that this duty of care extends to taking steps to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. Is the university testing? Are they following medical advice along with various regulatory guidelines? Those are all factors that are going to come into play.

Quote:And since everyone, athletes included, knows about CV, aren't they assuming the risk when they decide to play? Nobody is forcing them to play, and they know the risks, just like they know they might become paralyzed for life if they get hit on the football field.

This is why there's a labor movement in college sports and whether an athlete is defined as an employee is so tenuous. Is someone "forced" to go continue going to their job at Walmart even if they don't feel safe? Technically, no. However, the practical reality is that they would lose their job in that situation.

Likewise, is a football player going to keep his scholarship if the school moves forward with playing but he doesn't want to play due to the pandemic? If not, then that "choice" might be illusory and looks more like a constructive dismissal in an employee-employer relationship. That opens up a whole other set of can of worms for the university. As much as the "We Want to Play" crowd seems to play up the potential unionization of players that would want to play, the reality is that it's the opposite of constructively requiring athletes to play when they *don't* feel safe that gives a much greater risk of unionization and moving even more towards an employer-employee relationship.

Quote:If I was on a civil jury (would this be a jury trial if an athlete sued?), I would have a hard time finding a school liable for CV transmission. This isn't like say a poisonous substance in the uniforms that the students aren't aware of that schools are hiding from them. If you choose to play, you choose to assume the risk, IMO.

You can be assured that any plaintiff's attorney would want this in front of a jury. As an attorney, I would definitely not rely on an argument that "choosing to play" somehow absolves liability for the university. This would be particularly the case if there are medical experts advising the university that it's not safe to play. It would be slike stating that it's an employee's "choice" to enter into an asbestos-filled employer-owned building that the employer has advised the employee about. I wouldn't want to have to defend that set of facts in front of a jury AT ALL.

A general follow up on that.

Why in the hell would anyone want or think it reasonable to want the players (18-22 year olds) to assume all of the risk of Covid related problems, known and unknown, temporary or permanent?

Are these kids sacrificial lambs for the sport?

I have seen dire reports that schools would lose an average of $78 million if football is not played in 2020.

Why should an 18-22 year old kid bear all of the risk of Covid in return for a scholarship versus a school sponsoring the sport and making that revenue from the activity?

Shouldn't the school bear the burden versus the kid on a scholarship ?

I was a civil defense attorney whose career involved defending tort claims and even I think that is bull****.

The players who are concerned have the right to opt out.
The players get to play, which most enjoy.
The players get to play and improve their possibilities for getting paid in the NFL.
The players get far more intensive medical oversight than they would not playing.

All of this ranting about the players is bs--the real issue is whether schools should be encouraging crowds of 25-50k to come together. Big crowds increase the spread of the virus whether you are doing it for a good cause or not. If you want to yell at the admins, its that they are putting students and alums and communities at risk in order to generate TV $$s.

That "ranting" about players would be a successful argument before a jury, in my opinion.

Do you know who else thinks so? The Big Ten and the Pac 12.

If the schools are negligent and the players catch Covid, the players can sue.

Look, if you guys want to change the civil law system of liability in this country, have at it.

Good luck.

I'm just saying its bs if the schools are being transparent.

Sometimes bs wins court cases. I'm not debating that either way.

But to get back to Frank's point, no president will get sued for starting an outbreak in a community, so none of them are talking about that, which is the real issue. They are talking about players, which is where they could get sued.