(08-12-2020 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 12:55 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2904...yocarditis

... and how many of these cases have been proven to have been caused by CV19?

I haven't seen anything to suggest it has been. This is a rare condition, known to be associated with some viruses, which is appearing with alarming frequency in people who have recovered from covid19. An association with covid19 appears to be the most likely hypothesis, but more study will be required to confirm or contradict that hypothesis.

Quote: Remember, it's All About the Science, not Scary Anecdotal Stories.

No, it's all about the Money, so in the period before the question has been settled scientifically, the Conferences have to consider the financial liability.

What is the possible financial liability? How can an athlete sue a school if it catches CV19 playing football?

If the football players are all tested, wouldn't it make sense that if a player got COVID that it would have come from an outside source instead of a player on another team?

(08-11-2020 07:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/myocarditis#1

Looks like about 20 things can cause myocarditis. Namely herpes, hepatitis C, strep, alcohol, drugs, STDs, spider bites.

(08-12-2020 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 12:55 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2904...yocarditis

... and how many of these cases have been proven to have been caused by CV19?

I haven't seen anything to suggest it has been. This is a rare condition, known to be associated with some viruses, which is appearing with alarming frequency in people who have recovered from covid19. An association with covid19 appears to be the most likely hypothesis, but more study will be required to confirm or contradict that hypothesis.

Quote: Remember, it's All About the Science, not Scary Anecdotal Stories.

No, it's all about the Money, so in the period before the question has been settled scientifically, the Conferences have to consider the financial liability.

What is the possible financial liability? How can an athlete sue a school if it catches CV19 playing football?

Since you live in Louisiana and I practiced law there for 32 years, here is the Louisiana Duty/Risk analysis for negligence.

You balance the likelihood and the severity of the harm versus the cost of avoidance, that is Tort law 101.

Was a duty owed to the plaintiff? (Protect players from Covid transmission---that duty is assumed by the schools by having football)

Was that duty breached? (breach of some standard of care, failure to protect players. That will be the question. Did the school drop the ball here)

Was the risk of harm within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached?

(this is an easy one, yes)

Was the conduct in question (football here) a cause-in-fact of the harm suffered?

(Did Covid transmission come from football activities versus something else ? Issue of proof.)

Was the risk of harm reasonably foreseeable?

(Um, yes)


So, the issue in the hypothetical case of an LSU player vs. LSU in the 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge presided by Judge Janice Clark would boil down to did LSU breach the duty it assumed to protect the players from harm.

Did it fail to properly clean and disinfect? Did it put players in a position that harm came to them? Did they fail to test properly? Quarantine properly? Etc...etc.....

Understand that by playing football and putting players in that environment, they will be held responsible for any foreseeable breach of its duty to protect the players from harm.

Regarding damages, it all depends.

What if Joe Burrow caught Covid last year, ended up with lung and heart damage?

He could no longer play NFL football .

What would the damages totals be?

There are also pain and suffering, mental and physical.

What about loss of enjoyment of life? What if hypothetical Joe Burrow cannot do the things he used to do, like hunt, fish, etc..

All of these damages elements would be in play, depending on circumstances and proof of loss.

Brian Kelly and Dealin Hayes ( captain) on upcoming season.

https://www.today.com/video/notre-dame-h...9942085930

(08-12-2020 08:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/myocarditis#1

Looks like about 20 things can cause myocarditis. Namely herpes, hepatitis C, strep, alcohol, drugs, STDs, spider bites.

(08-12-2020 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 12:55 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:05 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2904...yocarditis

... and how many of these cases have been proven to have been caused by CV19?

I haven't seen anything to suggest it has been. This is a rare condition, known to be associated with some viruses, which is appearing with alarming frequency in people who have recovered from covid19. An association with covid19 appears to be the most likely hypothesis, but more study will be required to confirm or contradict that hypothesis.

Quote: Remember, it's All About the Science, not Scary Anecdotal Stories.

No, it's all about the Money, so in the period before the question has been settled scientifically, the Conferences have to consider the financial liability.

What is the possible financial liability? How can an athlete sue a school if it catches CV19 playing football?

Since you live in Louisiana and I practiced law there for 32 years, here is the Louisiana Duty/Risk analysis for negligence.

You balance the likelihood and the severity of the harm versus the cost of avoidance, that is Tort law 101.

Was a duty owed to the plaintiff? (Protect players from Covid transmission---that duty is assumed by the schools by having football)

Was that duty breached? (breach of some standard of care, failure to protect players. That will be the question. Did the school drop the ball here)

Was the risk of harm within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached?

(this is an easy one, yes)

Was the conduct in question (football here) a cause-in-fact of the harm suffered?

(Did Covid transmission come from football activities versus something else ? Issue of proof.)

Was the risk of harm reasonably foreseeable?

(Um, yes)

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?

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.

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.

(08-12-2020 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  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.

Personal responsibility is verboten these days.

(08-12-2020 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 08:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/myocarditis#1

Looks like about 20 things can cause myocarditis. Namely herpes, hepatitis C, strep, alcohol, drugs, STDs, spider bites.

(08-12-2020 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 12:55 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... and how many of these cases have been proven to have been caused by CV19?

I haven't seen anything to suggest it has been. This is a rare condition, known to be associated with some viruses, which is appearing with alarming frequency in people who have recovered from covid19. An association with covid19 appears to be the most likely hypothesis, but more study will be required to confirm or contradict that hypothesis.

Quote: Remember, it's All About the Science, not Scary Anecdotal Stories.

No, it's all about the Money, so in the period before the question has been settled scientifically, the Conferences have to consider the financial liability.

What is the possible financial liability? How can an athlete sue a school if it catches CV19 playing football?

Since you live in Louisiana and I practiced law there for 32 years, here is the Louisiana Duty/Risk analysis for negligence.

You balance the likelihood and the severity of the harm versus the cost of avoidance, that is Tort law 101.

Was a duty owed to the plaintiff? (Protect players from Covid transmission---that duty is assumed by the schools by having football)

Was that duty breached? (breach of some standard of care, failure to protect players. That will be the question. Did the school drop the ball here)

Was the risk of harm within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached?

(this is an easy one, yes)

Was the conduct in question (football here) a cause-in-fact of the harm suffered?

(Did Covid transmission come from football activities versus something else ? Issue of proof.)

Was the risk of harm reasonably foreseeable?

(Um, yes)

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?

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.

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.

The schools are sponsoring football...for money.

The schools stand to make tens of millions of revenues from these kids playing at their institutions.

They are setting up the conditions for the players to play football at their schools.

It is the schools saying, "We can do this safely, have no worries." They better make sure that they are accurate with this statement and doing all that they can to reasonably make sure of it.

(It is sort of like a merchant, if you invite people to come to your store, you assume the risk of harm to customers, not the customers themselves)

The schools are therefore inviting the players to play this year for their institution, therefore they are assuming the duty to protect the players from contracting Covid from football related activities.

The schools assume the risk, unless a valid legal waiver (good luck with that) eliminates that assumption.

The schools are the ones with testing and other protocols. They are the ones that need to assume the risk of making sure that they do not do anything negligent to harm the kids, not shift that burden to the kids themselves who have no control whether their school drops the ball and is negligent or not.

This isn't new, hard or groundbreaking. This is several hundreds of years of settled tort law. It has nothing to do with "personal responsibility" or "nowadays".

(As far as your other bolded text, you don't think that players being harmed by contracting Covid is a foreseeable risk of harm?)

(08-12-2020 11:34 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 08:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/myocarditis#1

Looks like about 20 things can cause myocarditis. Namely herpes, hepatitis C, strep, alcohol, drugs, STDs, spider bites.

(08-12-2020 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 12:55 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  I haven't seen anything to suggest it has been. This is a rare condition, known to be associated with some viruses, which is appearing with alarming frequency in people who have recovered from covid19. An association with covid19 appears to be the most likely hypothesis, but more study will be required to confirm or contradict that hypothesis.


No, it's all about the Money, so in the period before the question has been settled scientifically, the Conferences have to consider the financial liability.

What is the possible financial liability? How can an athlete sue a school if it catches CV19 playing football?

Since you live in Louisiana and I practiced law there for 32 years, here is the Louisiana Duty/Risk analysis for negligence.

You balance the likelihood and the severity of the harm versus the cost of avoidance, that is Tort law 101.

Was a duty owed to the plaintiff? (Protect players from Covid transmission---that duty is assumed by the schools by having football)

Was that duty breached? (breach of some standard of care, failure to protect players. That will be the question. Did the school drop the ball here)

Was the risk of harm within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached?

(this is an easy one, yes)

Was the conduct in question (football here) a cause-in-fact of the harm suffered?

(Did Covid transmission come from football activities versus something else ? Issue of proof.)

Was the risk of harm reasonably foreseeable?

(Um, yes)

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?

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.

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.

The schools are sponsoring football...for money.

The schools stand to make tens of millions of revenues from these kids playing at their institutions.

They are setting up the conditions for the players to play football at their schools.

It is the schools saying, "We can do this safely, have no worries." They better make sure that they are accurate with this statement and doing all that they can to reasonably make sure of it.

(It is sort of like a merchant, if you invite people to come to your store, you assume the risk of harm to customers, not the customers themselves)

The schools are therefore inviting the players to play this year for their institution, therefore they are assuming the duty to protect the players from contracting Covid from football related activities.

The schools assume the risk, unless a valid legal waiver (good luck with that) eliminates that assumption.

The schools are the ones with testing and other protocols. They are the ones that need to assume the risk of making sure that they do not do anything negligent to harm the kids, not shift that burden to the kids themselves who have no control whether their school drops the ball and is negligent or not.

This isn't new, hard or groundbreaking. This is several hundreds of years of settled tort law.

(As far as your other bolded text, you don't think that players being harmed by contracting Covid is a foreseeable risk of harm?)

The schools/conferences claiming they are still playing are responsible for the medical professionals they choose to represent them. These medical professionals are claiming it's safe to play, that's easy money for a player that becomes sick and wants paid.

Is it right or wrong? I see both sides of the argument and as far as I'm aware, players have a right to not play this year if they so choose. The player should take some responsibility for choosing to play, but it wouldn't work that way, they are the "victim".

(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 like 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.

(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 like 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.

About the bolded parts:

1) To me, "duty of care" is something adults have towards children. But the vast majority of college athletes are adults. Adults can make decisions for themselves. Regarding the specialized medical personnel, I think everyone understands that this exists to treat sports injuries, not something like a disease.

2) I think universities should give athletes the option to not play and keep their scholarship for the year. That's the right thing to do. Still, even if they don't, IMO the choice isn't in any way illusory. You're an adult, man up and decide whether the risk of playing football is worth your scholarship. Football players do that all the time anyway - football is an inherently dangerous sport, and if you have a football scholarship you have the choice of playing football with that risk or losing your scholarship. Heck, the existing science says that the "regular" risks of playing football are far greater than CV19 risks.

It's like me as a professor, I've been told that some of my classes are going to be "face to face", meaning I have to come on campus because I don't face any of the ADA-defined risk factors. Even if I would lose my job if I refused, I do have a real choice as to whether to come to campus or not. I can't blame my school if i come to campus and catch CV19. I know the risks as much as anyone now.

3) You now know to have me struck from your jury.

(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****.

I'm not a lawyer but I would guess that the school would do everything they could to settle and keep it quiet. If a player dies of Covid it's going to be a bad look on that school and CFB as a whole and the players union idea will get supercharged.

(08-12-2020 01:21 PM)quo vadis 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 like 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.

About the bolded parts:

1) To me, "duty of care" is something adults have towards children. But the vast majority of college athletes are adults. Adults can make decisions for themselves. Regarding the specialized medical personnel, I think everyone understands that this exists to treat sports injuries, not something like a disease.

2) I think universities should give athletes the option to not play and keep their scholarship for the year. That's the right thing to do. Still, even if they don't, IMO the choice isn't in any way illusory. You're an adult, man up and decide whether the risk of playing football is worth your scholarship. Football players do that all the time anyway - football is an inherently dangerous sport, and if you have a football scholarship you have the choice of playing football with that risk or losing your scholarship. Heck, the existing science says that the "regular" risks of playing football are far greater than CV19 risks.

It's like me as a professor, I've been told that some of my classes are going to be "face to face", meaning I have to come on campus because I don't face any of the ADA-defined risk factors. Even if I would lose my job if I refused, I do have a real choice as to whether to come to campus or not. I can't blame my school if i come to campus and catch CV19. I know the risks as much as anyone now.

3) You now know to have me struck from your jury.

You walk into the Mall of Louisiana and a light fixture falls on your head, causing you brain damage.

You want the Mall to take responsibility but the Mall says:

1) We have no duty of care to you, you ain't a child, and

2) You assumed the risk of brain damage when you chose to shop here. That was totally your exercise of personal responsibility and the risk was entirely on you.


That is not the English/American system of law and never has been.

(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****.

To me, these 18-22 year olds are adults. Schools do not have a parental-care relationship with them, or shouldn't, as they are .... adults, just like you and me.

IMO, generally speaking organizations should be held liable for punitive damages when there is deliberate information asymmetry - e.g., an employer knows that asbestos is dangerous but sends the workers into the area anyway without telling them of the danger and a worker gets asbestos cancer. Damn those bastards and make them pay millions.

But that's not what we have here. The athletes involved know the Covid-19 risks, at least as well as the schools do. Knowledge of CV is essentially universal right now.

IMO, the school should be "on the hook" for CV19 medical care if it can be shown that CV19 was contracted while engaged in football-related activities. Just like the school is on the hook for medical care if an athlete breaks his ankle during a game, in practice, while attending a team meeting, riding the bus to a game, etc. If the school also typically covers medical care for injuries or diseases to scholarship athletes that did not occur during team activities, like if an athlete develops pneumonia on Spring Break or breaks a leg at a party, then CV19 care should be covered the same.

But not lawsuit-type damages.

(08-12-2020 01:30 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 01:21 PM)quo vadis 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 like 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.

About the bolded parts:

1) To me, "duty of care" is something adults have towards children. But the vast majority of college athletes are adults. Adults can make decisions for themselves. Regarding the specialized medical personnel, I think everyone understands that this exists to treat sports injuries, not something like a disease.

2) I think universities should give athletes the option to not play and keep their scholarship for the year. That's the right thing to do. Still, even if they don't, IMO the choice isn't in any way illusory. You're an adult, man up and decide whether the risk of playing football is worth your scholarship. Football players do that all the time anyway - football is an inherently dangerous sport, and if you have a football scholarship you have the choice of playing football with that risk or losing your scholarship. Heck, the existing science says that the "regular" risks of playing football are far greater than CV19 risks.

It's like me as a professor, I've been told that some of my classes are going to be "face to face", meaning I have to come on campus because I don't face any of the ADA-defined risk factors. Even if I would lose my job if I refused, I do have a real choice as to whether to come to campus or not. I can't blame my school if i come to campus and catch CV19. I know the risks as much as anyone now.

3) You now know to have me struck from your jury.

You walk into the Mall of Louisiana and a light fixture falls on your head, causing you brain damage.

You want the Mall to take responsibility but the Mall says:

1) We have no duty of care to you, you ain't a child, and

2) You assumed the risk of brain damage when you chose to shop here. That was totally your exercise of personal responsibility and the risk was entirely on you.


That is not the English/American system of law and never has been.

To me, the light fixture is IMO not a "reasonable, foreseeable" risk. People in a Mall have a reasonable expectation that infrastructure is not dangerous, that elevators won't fall, escalators won't suck them under, walls and ceilings won't fall on them, etc. The Mall implicitly guarantees all of that when it opens its doors.

In today's environment, nobody has any reasonable expectation of being safe from CV19 while playing athletics. That is a forseeable, known risk, so if players are choosing to play (if they choose to) with eyes wide open, they are fairly assuming that risk.

(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 like 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.

To Frank/Terry and all other lawyers:

Out of curiosity, from a legal lens (and not partisan), do you think the other leagues actually go forward and conduct a game this season? Would you advise universities to go forward with the season if you were a lawyer counseling the SEC, BIG 12, or PAC 12? Reading between the lines, you both seem to be saying "we don't know how a case would turn out, but it seems likely that schools which go forward with the season are more likely than not to be found liable for claims in a potential court case, especially if its a jury trial." Is that a fair interpretation?

Also thanks or your input, this is a really enlightening discussion.

(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****.

Very informative info, Terry.

I have additional questions that I would be curious what your perspective is.

In proving liability, won't the plaintiffs have to establish that future infections among athletes was the result of continuing to play the season? if so, that brings up a number of complications in my mind.

Since the athletes CURRENTLY in preseason camps are locked down pretty tight, infections are a lot less likely at the current time. This seems to be playing out real time where the infections among athletes largely occurred PRIOR to camp when they were on their own, and picked up during the initial testing at camp. Since the camps have started, I think the data will show there really hasn't been any spread to speak of. The issue will be when the general student population returns and the protective "bubbles" that the schools have established for the FB preseason camps are no longer practical.

One could easily presume that the likely inevitable infections will come from athletes mixing in with the general student population (which they would be doing whether or not the FB season is cancelled.) If so, then would the liability conceivably be less to do with playing the FB season and more to do with just being in school interacting with the student population on a daily basis? (In fact, a numbers of players have stated they feel safer playing where they are constantly monitored and tested. Something that would likely be less intensive if the season was cancelled.)

So the questions would be:

1. If all the above turns out to be true, would not the potential liability be focused on the schools reopening in person learning rather than playing the season?

2. If question #1 is answered in the affirmative, then wouldn't the liability extend to any student who is harmed by COVID-19 while at school as opposed to just athletes?

3. If questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, what kind of precedent does this set for the future? While we are certainly in unprecedented times (well, arguably since 1918), there have been years where there has been widespread flu where, tragically, some students have been impacted. Would liability potentially extend to these instances in the future? If not what are differences?

To be clear, I am not arguing for or against playing the fall FB season. I am just trying to understand all of the considerations around the question.

(08-12-2020 01:31 PM)quo vadis 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****.

To me, these 18-22 year olds are adults. Schools do not have a parental-care relationship with them, or shouldn't, as they are .... adults, just like you and me.

IMO, generally speaking organizations should be held liable for punitive damages when there is deliberate information asymmetry - e.g., an employer knows that asbestos is dangerous but sends the workers into the area anyway without telling them of the danger and a worker gets asbestos cancer. Damn those bastards and make them pay millions.

But that's not what we have here. The athletes involved know the Covid-19 risks, at least as well as the schools do. Knowledge of CV is essentially universal right now.

IMO, the school should be "on the hook" for CV19 medical care if it can be shown that CV19 was contracted while engaged in football-related activities. Just like the school is on the hook for medical care if an athlete breaks his ankle during a game, in practice, while attending a team meeting, riding the bus to a game, etc. If the school also typically covers medical care for injuries or diseases to scholarship athletes that did not occur during team activities, like if an athlete develops pneumonia on Spring Break or breaks a leg at a party, then CV19 care should be covered the same.

But not lawsuit-type damages.

The coaches and schools also made the promise to the parents that they will keep their kids safety and well-being outside of fottball and other sports. Having them played under this pandemic is not keeping their promise.

(08-12-2020 11:34 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 10:38 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 08:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(08-11-2020 07:52 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  https://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/myocarditis#1

Looks like about 20 things can cause myocarditis. Namely herpes, hepatitis C, strep, alcohol, drugs, STDs, spider bites.

(08-12-2020 08:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 12:55 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  I haven't seen anything to suggest it has been. This is a rare condition, known to be associated with some viruses, which is appearing with alarming frequency in people who have recovered from covid19. An association with covid19 appears to be the most likely hypothesis, but more study will be required to confirm or contradict that hypothesis.


No, it's all about the Money, so in the period before the question has been settled scientifically, the Conferences have to consider the financial liability.

What is the possible financial liability? How can an athlete sue a school if it catches CV19 playing football?

Since you live in Louisiana and I practiced law there for 32 years, here is the Louisiana Duty/Risk analysis for negligence.

You balance the likelihood and the severity of the harm versus the cost of avoidance, that is Tort law 101.

Was a duty owed to the plaintiff? (Protect players from Covid transmission---that duty is assumed by the schools by having football)

Was that duty breached? (breach of some standard of care, failure to protect players. That will be the question. Did the school drop the ball here)

Was the risk of harm within the scope of protection afforded by the duty breached?

(this is an easy one, yes)

Was the conduct in question (football here) a cause-in-fact of the harm suffered?

(Did Covid transmission come from football activities versus something else ? Issue of proof.)

Was the risk of harm reasonably foreseeable?

(Um, yes)

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?

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.

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.

The schools are sponsoring football...for money.

The schools stand to make tens of millions of revenues from these kids playing at their institutions.

They are setting up the conditions for the players to play football at their schools.

It is the schools saying, "We can do this safely, have no worries." They better make sure that they are accurate with this statement and doing all that they can to reasonably make sure of it.

(It is sort of like a merchant, if you invite people to come to your store, you assume the risk of harm to customers, not the customers themselves)

The schools are therefore inviting the players to play this year for their institution, therefore they are assuming the duty to protect the players from contracting Covid from football related activities.

The schools assume the risk, unless a valid legal waiver (good luck with that) eliminates that assumption.

The schools are the ones with testing and other protocols. They are the ones that need to assume the risk of making sure that they do not do anything negligent to harm the kids, not shift that burden to the kids themselves who have no control whether their school drops the ball and is negligent or not.

This isn't new, hard or groundbreaking. This is several hundreds of years of settled tort law. It has nothing to do with "personal responsibility" or "nowadays".

(As far as your other bolded text, you don't think that players being harmed by contracting Covid is a foreseeable risk of harm?)

Terry the same thing could be said of the schools having students on campus for learning for money.

Sure, I think that the liability issues are similar for schools that open up to students. They are inviting the students to live there and attend school.

If the school is negligent in protecting them, it will have breached its duty to those invitees and would be subject to answer in court.

With any such lawsuit, player or student, the issue will be causation, negligence by the school and proof of injury and damages.

But, that was not this thread. This thread asked how/why would schools be open to suits by players and why shouldn't the players assume the risks.

The schools are sponsoring a sport that makes the schools $78 million a year (on average) in revenue this fall.

To be able to make this money, the schools are taking it upon themselves to assure the players that it is safe.

(This is easily shown because all schools have set up Medical Advisory Boards, testing protocols, quarantine protocols, etc.. They have already assumed this duty in addition to it being imposed by law)


The regular students are not being transported to other schools for the express and understood purpose of making their school a bunch of TV money and being assured all is safe in doing so.

The activities of the players are controlled by the school, which is in total control of the environment and the setting up of safeguards, testing and protocols.

Getting past who has the resources and better ability to obtain expert advice and assess the risks, the schools control the protocols.

To mean anything, those protocols must be reasonable under the circumstances given the current state of medical knowledge and actually followed.

IF the schools don't set up and follow reasonable protocols so the players can safely participate, then liability will fall on the schools, not the "student-athlete".

The breach of duty is on the school if it is negligent in setting up and making sure reasonable safeguards are followed.

Whether they pay any damages depends on proof of causation and proof of the amount of damages sustained.

Again, why should the (unpaid or underpaid) players assume all of the risks of infection, death or chronic bodily damage and the institutions making all of the revenues assume none of them?

(It is interesting that if the players were employees instead of "student-athletes", then the legal exposure of the schools would be more limited, to intentional acts, gross negligence and worker's compensation type damages and medical expenses)

(08-12-2020 02:10 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-12-2020 01:31 PM)quo vadis 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****.

To me, these 18-22 year olds are adults. Schools do not have a parental-care relationship with them, or shouldn't, as they are .... adults, just like you and me.

IMO, generally speaking organizations should be held liable for punitive damages when there is deliberate information asymmetry - e.g., an employer knows that asbestos is dangerous but sends the workers into the area anyway without telling them of the danger and a worker gets asbestos cancer. Damn those bastards and make them pay millions.

But that's not what we have here. The athletes involved know the Covid-19 risks, at least as well as the schools do. Knowledge of CV is essentially universal right now.

IMO, the school should be "on the hook" for CV19 medical care if it can be shown that CV19 was contracted while engaged in football-related activities. Just like the school is on the hook for medical care if an athlete breaks his ankle during a game, in practice, while attending a team meeting, riding the bus to a game, etc. If the school also typically covers medical care for injuries or diseases to scholarship athletes that did not occur during team activities, like if an athlete develops pneumonia on Spring Break or breaks a leg at a party, then CV19 care should be covered the same.

But not lawsuit-type damages.

The coaches and schools also made the promise to the parents that they will keep their kids safety and well-being outside of fottball and other sports. Having them played under this pandemic is not keeping their promise.

Well, the school cannot "have them play". Nobody can force an athlete to play.

Also, the SCIENCE as we currently know it says that the typical football player is far more likely to have a serious health issue from ... just playing football than they are from CV19. The vast, vast majority of 20 year olds who get CV experience it as a mild flu for a few days. Whereas breaking bones is pretty common on the football field.