|
|
Post by lovethegame on Sept 23, 2014 15:59:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Sept 23, 2014 22:01:41 GMT -5
"damages were caused by the greater negligence and/or willfulness of the Plaintiff."
What does that even mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by lovethegame on Sept 24, 2014 5:22:23 GMT -5
I guess that she caused her own injuries by going along with the hazing and/or by negligently running into a brick wall while blindfolded.
|
|
|
|
Post by lovethegame on Sept 24, 2014 5:27:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lovethegame on Sept 24, 2014 5:48:00 GMT -5
www.islandpacket.com/2014/09/23/3330091/oconee-county-coroner-identifies.htmlApparently this young man was a transfer student after attending TrI County for a year. So, he was a pledge. This is so tragic and sad. It makes me wonder just how common hazing is. I know the sheriff said there was no indication of hazing, but how many 5:30 am runs does a fraternity have in the course of a year?
|
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Sept 24, 2014 7:48:22 GMT -5
I guess that she caused her own injuries by going along with the hazing and/or by negligently running into a brick wall while blindfolded. If that's their defense....I hope they go down in flames. Im sure if she had known there was a brick wall she wouldn't have run into it. I really do hope they have more than that for their sake |
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Sept 24, 2014 7:50:33 GMT -5
www.islandpacket.com/2014/09/23/3330091/oconee-county-coroner-identifies.htmlApparently this young man was a transfer student after attending TrI County for a year. So, he was a pledge. This is so tragic and sad. It makes me wonder just how common hazing is. I know the sheriff said there was no indication of hazing, but how many 5:30 am runs does a fraternity have in the course of a year? From what I hear hazing is very common, and it was probably more common in the past than now. Either people were not as narcissist before or they put up with more crap back in the day. Not sure what they get out of it, I guess its a power rush for some, making others feel inferior by humiliating them...don't really see the point of it |
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Sept 24, 2014 10:13:28 GMT -5
I guess that she caused her own injuries by going along with the hazing and/or by negligently running into a brick wall while blindfolded. That's absurd. What the statement means is that her injuries were made worse over time by her playing soccer or other things. She did wait two years to file this lawsuit - I fully expect that any defense will use that reasoning of the injuries could have been made worse through other things beside the incident that evening. |
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Sept 24, 2014 12:40:04 GMT -5
I guess that she caused her own injuries by going along with the hazing and/or by negligently running into a brick wall while blindfolded. That's absurd. What the statement means is that her injuries were made worse over time by her playing soccer or other things. She did wait two years to file this lawsuit - I fully expect that any defense will use that reasoning of the injuries could have been made worse through other things beside the incident that evening. I still don't understand if she was that hurt why she continued to play...I also read somewhere that the statute of limitations may have run out? |
|
|
|
Post by lovethegame on Sept 24, 2014 16:19:42 GMT -5
That's absurd. What the statement means is that her injuries were made worse over time by her playing soccer or other things. She did wait two years to file this lawsuit - I fully expect that any defense will use that reasoning of the injuries could have been made worse through other things beside the incident that evening. I still don't understand if she was that hurt why she continued to play...I also read somewhere that the statute of limitations may have run out? She did continue to play, although, don't forget that she was redshirted her freshman year. Is the NFL using the same defense? After all the NFL players continued to play despite head injuries. It's only later that they find out the seriousness of the injury and that they are left with lasting disabilities. As as far as the statute of limitations goes, that's going to be up to a judge to determine. I would imagine the Plantiff will argue that the clock started ticking when the neurologist diagnosed traumatic brain injury last fall. The Defendants will argue that the clock started ticking that night. |
|
|
|
Post by lovethegame on Sept 24, 2014 16:37:38 GMT -5
I guess that she caused her own injuries by going along with the hazing and/or by negligently running into a brick wall while blindfolded. That's absurd. What the statement means is that her injuries were made worse over time by her playing soccer or other things. She did wait two years to file this lawsuit - I fully expect that any defense will use that reasoning of the injuries could have been made worse through other things beside the incident that evening. You are probably right, but in reality it know is pretty hard to figure out what their response is since they didn't say much at all. They didn't elaborate on much of anything. They didn't dispute that that she was injured that night. I'm still wondering if they provided her with the same treatment they would have had she not been hurt while being hazed. If they didn't, that's an issue and how do they prove that the injury didn't result from hitting a brick wall and then falling back and hitting a table? Her neurologist will say it was, and the coaches' neurologist will say it wasn't. A case isn't nearly as hard to prove in civil court. So, who can really predict how this will turn out. |
|
|
|
Post by jack4343 on Sept 25, 2014 6:31:40 GMT -5
I agree that the coaches response really didn't say much to defend themselves. They might be holding their defense to present to the court instead of a press release but I was thinking that if I was Clemson University then I would be a bit worried about this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by jack4343 on Sept 25, 2014 6:48:14 GMT -5
Also wanted to comment that if one of their main defense points is getting the case dismissed based on a technicality (statute of limitations) then they really don't have much to work with here. Of course, technicality or not, if the judge finds this to be the case then it will be good enough for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by lovethegame on Sept 25, 2014 7:23:03 GMT -5
As far as the death early this week, the Sheriff's Department continues to believe this wasn't hazing. The young man disappeared on a weekly fraternity run. There have been rumors and suggestions of hazing, but they have interviewed a whole lot of witnesses and don't find any consistencies in their statements. They are still investigating.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevieg on Sept 25, 2014 8:42:42 GMT -5
Also wanted to comment that if one of their main defense points is getting the case dismissed based on a technicality (statute of limitations) then they really don't have much to work with here. Of course, technicality or not, if the judge finds this to be the case then it will be good enough for them. As an attorney, you work with what you have. It's so much easier to get a case dismissed on a S/L violation than on any substantive grounds. This defense was raised by the attorney and not indicative of any actual facts relevant to the case. That being said, I still think they will have to get their story out if they ever want to work in coaching again. |
|
|
|
Post by jack4343 on Sept 26, 2014 17:55:20 GMT -5
|
|
