Had no idea what stance he was taking, I don’t see his posts. This site becomes much more pleasant with judicious use of the “ignore” function.
I stand by my previous post, regardless of whose position it may or may not support. I have little expectation that any judge or jury would find in the university’s favor in a suit brought by a sick (or dead) player’s family. Personal responsibility may not be dead, but it’s on life support in a hospital in a third world country with an unstable power grid. And there are armed rebels in the streets.
So, there is quite a bit to unpack here.
1. This is the real thing. Not a TV legal drama. A plaintiff carries the burden of proof on his claim. The plaintiff must prove the elements of his claim. Judges follow the law. Juries follow jury instructions. The best drama to gain ratings is not part of the deal. Jury trials are generally long and boring. Mindless rants about frivolous lawsuits and meanderings about liability from people that watched 10 minutes of CNN last week are meaningless.
2. If football is played, government agencies the NCAA and Pac-12 will have made the decision to do so. Keep in mind that Inslee let Boeing reopen in April, so it's not like the state's financial position is meaningless to him. Also, WSU won't be some rogue institution, for practical reasons if nothing else. If there is no one to play, WSU isn't going to run 12 intrasquad scrimmages. If for instance the SEC is only conference playing, they aren't going to share with WSU or anyone else. The SEC will keep that rating bonanza to itself.
3. I don't know what you think the plaintiff's cause of action would be, I'm guessing negligence based on your posts. Negligence requires the plaintiff to prove the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty, the defendant breached that duty, the breach caused the plaintiff's damages.
4. If football is being played, that means government authorities (at least WA, OR, CA, AZ, CO and UT), the NCAA and Pac-12 have given it a green light. That's important. The same entities have been or will lay out guidelines for football to be played. For example, Whitman county is in Phase 3 under Inslee's reopening plan, which allows for gatherings of up to 50. Until recently Whitman was well on its way to Phase 4 where there is no limit on gatherings. So assuming Inslee doesn't rewrite the reopening plan, even under Phase 3 football can be played with no one in the stands. The offense and defense can be segregated on the sidelines, and you have two groups under 50 on each sideline. This is setting a duty the scope of the duty- follow the rules and the duty has been satisfied.
WSU tested at least 60 people as of the end of May Chun said there were no positives. WSU will no longer be publically sharing tests results. I assume that you've seen the social media posts the showing guys working out. They set up stations outside (hard to tell where, I assume the practice field) to make sure everyone is six feet apart. They're running the workouts in groups. I don't know what their living situation is, I do know that WSU is placing one student per dorm room for at least the fall semester. Masks are required statewide.
5. How does the breach occur? WSU would have to violate one of the reopening guidelines or other rules in place. Like not requiring masks in position group meetings are something like that. So, if a 19 year old student-athlete were to go to a party with underage drinking that 51 or more people attended, and the contact tracing indicates that's where he was exposed, WSU did not breach any duty to that student-athlete. This goes to the causation element as well.
6. We will assume there are damages since there is a dead person.
7. If all of the four elements are proven by the plaintiff, WSU still has defenses like a waiver and assumption of risk. This is why I've brought up concussions. I think we can assume that football players know about the virus, the risks of returning to campus and playing football, just like they know about the risks of physical injury and concussion in playing football. They don't have to do it. No one is compelling them to play or return to campus or go to school. They are assuming the risk. Just like Connor Halliday had no claim against WSU for his broken leg- he assumed the risk.
8. The case would have to survive summary judgment to even get to a jury. If the case survives summary judgment, the jury must find for the plaintiff on all of the elements. As mentioned above, there are instructions given to the jury on how this works. Even if one or two of the jurors decide to ignore the instructions because they feel bad for the plaintiff, hate WSU, think Rolovich is a jerk or whatever, that doesn't mean anything.
9. Underlying all of this the data regarding the virus. The risk for someone college age becoming sick (even if they're positive) is slim. The risk of someone college age becoming sick enough to hospitalization is slimmer. The risk of someone college age dying from the virus are minuscule. The risks of someone college age in peak physical condition dying are even slimmer.
Overall, there is much more to it than an erosion of personal responsibility. This is just a brief summary of what the analysis would look like.
