Part 1 Question 1. A. Please explain how these four tenets apply in this situation.

Please give your opinion, based on these tenets, of whether the Smith Family will meet the burden of proof to successfully sue SU-ME under the theory of negligence. Please be specific and on point. Given the 4 tenets of negligence, the Smith family more than meets their burden of proof to successfully sue the university. First and foremost, by purchasing the tickets, the university was required to give the Smiths a certain standard of care. In many ways, the university fell short. For starters, the netting behind the backstop was worn out and hadnt been replaced in a long time. Next, although Junior was running around in the stands, the ushers did nothing to get him back in his seat and ensure that he was safe from potential falling hazards and tripping hazards. The fact that they were even seen laughing and giggling about his antics even leads to the potential for gross negligence when it comes to the concussion. Now, when it comes to the incident itself, a baseball tore through the worn out netting, hit Junior, broke his arm, then he fell and got a concussion. The third and fourth tenets of negligence come into play here. Due to direct negligence by the university, the ball was able to tear through the netting, hitting Junior, causing a real injury. The Smiths lawyer should have no problem proving that had the net not been worn out where the ball hit it, the net would have stopped the ball. Furthermore, the fact that the ushers who were under the supervision of the Athletic Director did nothing to prevent Junior from being where he shouldnt have been when he was hit. Question 1. B. What possible defenses to Negligence will SU-ME assert, and what do you feel will be the outcomes of these defenses? Although it is a clear cut case of negligence by the university, SU-ME has a few weak arguments. To begin with, on the back of the tickets, the university prints its policies, procedures, and a waiver of liability. In the policies and procedures I find it hard to believe that it states running up and down the stands is accepted practice. The universitys lawyers can argue that had Junior been in his seat, the ball would have never struck him nor would he have gotten the concussion. Furthermore, the university could argue that by having the netting in place, they have made efforts to avoid the potential for foul balls to hit the fans. Lastly, an argument could be made that foul balls going into the stands is a part of the game. Like being cold at a hockey game, spectators need to accept certain levels of risk when coming to a game if whatever injury occurs is directly due to normal game play. Part 2

Interoffice Memo
Date: To: Cc: From: RE:

4/28/2012 SU-ME Head Girls Tennis Coach University President Mr. David Milner Hazing

Priority: [Urgent]

This memo is being sent in regards to this past Saturdays incident where the freshmen girls were required to sing the school fight song to the crowd immediately following the final game. Although this may be considered a tradition within the girls tennis program, any group being required to do something against their will to maintain status amongst their group is considered hazing. The following is the definition of hazing for your records. Hazing is an intentional, knowing or reckless act by a person who acted alone or with others that was directed against an individual and that person knew or should have known would endanger the physical health or safety of the individual, and that was done for the purpose of affiliation with, participation in, or maintaining membership in any organization. In moving forward, please refrain from allowing your athletes, or any other athletes you may have contact with from forcing anyone who may be joining a team or is new to a team to do anything which is not directly related to the sport itself. Furthermore, please keep in mind any additional workouts run by student athletes may not be done so without prior approval from you. Given the fact that you supported the event, this memorandum will be added to your personnel file for the universitys records and will be considered a formal warning. If any further instances of hazing occur within your team or which you are aware of, your employment at SU-ME may be jeopardized and a formal hearing to determine your further employment will need to be called. DM

Part 3

Question 3: How would you address the situation above, based on the policy, and keeping in mind ideas about discrimination, privacy, and sexual harassment (hint: discuss all of these things). The relationship between the trainer and coach is a very complicated one. On one hand, the policy states that employees of the university may not create a conflict of interest when it comes to dating students at the university due to grading and other preferential treatment. On the flip side, however, the trainer is not being evaluated by the coach directly nor does the coach have any formal say in the future of the student trainer in terms of hiring, advancement or termination. Due to this fact, there currently is no conflict of interest with the relationship nor has the coach broken any rules within the university. Moving forward, the university must ensure that no laws of discrimination, privacy or sexual harassment are being broken. Theres no guarantee that the student trainer isnt being coerced into a relationship which may fall directly into the area of sexual harassment. Also, it will need to be investigated as to the motives of the student trainer as she may be urging for a relationship to potentially advance her career. First thing that needs to happen would be a meeting with the student trainer to ensure that she is not being coerced into the relationship and that she understands that due to discrimination laws, she will not receive preferential treatment in terms of future employment at the university. Next a meeting needs to be called with the coach to establish clear cut expectations for her in terms of communication with the athletic director. Due to privacy laws, she cannot be expected to divulge any information not pertinent to the university if she so chooses. However, in terms of a relationship with a student trainer, disclosure of the start and end of the relationship itself would potentially be information which the university would need to know. Therefore, basic information about the start and potential end of the relationship would be requested to avoid any conflict of interest in terms of grading, hiring, or not hiring. It would be important to ensure the coach and trainer both know that it is not mandatory to divulge any information about their relationship due to privacy laws but requesting the information would be a good way for the university to avoid any further issues in the future. Lastly, an amendment to the policy pertaining to conflict of interest due to amorous or sexual relationships amongst staff and students would need to be made. The policy would need to state that relationships between 2 employees at the university be divulged to the university itself to avoid any conflicts of interest within the university. The policy would need to clearly state that the information would be formally requested by the university but the staff members wouldnt be required to divulge any information they are not comfortable with giving.