Suing the NCAA | The Boneyard

Suing the NCAA

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

geohusky

Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
363
Reaction Score
916
For all the lawyers out there, would the current players have any grounds to sue the NCAA for keeping them out of the tournament since they have met their obligations and had nothing to do with the low APR.

I’m sure someone would love to take a shot at the NCAA.
 
The NCAA is punishing the institution; the fact that ends up hurting current players is I guess acceptable collateral damage.
 
Partial, you are way too rational.

I tried to convince the NCAA with my beautiful experience and they laughed.
 
For all of the JD recipients of varying experience and knowledge and Holiday Inn Express guest lawyers alike, would fellow Boneyarders have any grounds to sue large GIF posters since the readers have met their obligations as non-paying Boneyard enthusiasts and had nothing to do with allowing such GIFs. All in good fun, but I’m sure someone would love to take a shot at some GIF posters. ;)
 
.-.
I just made a silly message slighly mocking the group and was quickly banned
 
geohusky said:
I’m sure someone would love to take a shot at the NCAA.
Expand ...

You come at the king, you best not miss. Sure, the school or the players could take a shot at the NCAA. The players could sue for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress (or some other far-fetched theory). It'd quickly be dismissed.

And we'd get the death penalty next year because some recruit's second cousin attended a 10th birthday party for a UConn coach's friend's nephew and had a soda and a piece of cake.

I wouldn't advise it.
 
geohusky said:
For all the lawyers out there, would the current players have any grounds to sue the NCAA for keeping them out of the tournament since they have met their obligations and had nothing to do with the low APR.

I’m sure someone would love to take a shot at the NCAA.
Expand ...
I'm not an attorney.

I don't see how any of the players could claim grounds for suit. Every one of them is at UConn voluntarily. If the tournament (which is never guaranteed to an athlete) is that important to them, the NCAA not only would allow them to transfer to another school, they also would waive the one year rule in special cases such as this.

As far as suing for tournament play in general, if a student athlete could do this, they could then sue a school that underperformed (could on of Pitt's players sue that school for this past season?).

There are numerous things that the NCAA is doing wrong in the case of UConn's APR but preventing specific UConn players from competing in the NCAA tournament is not one of them. The NCAA has gone out of its way (likely as an additional punishment to these schools) to make allowances for the student athletes in these cases.
 
I am not an attorney, but am the highest rated poster on the entire internet for nearly three years running, so I have standing.

I believe we can sue the NCAA for torturous interference because, honestly, next season will just be torture if I have to endure you people without the prospects of a national championship at the end of it all.

I do not believe that tortious interference is a viable option for us to pursue. We have no torts and if we had tortes, I would eat them because I am hungry and they are delicious.
 
.-.
UCDaveD said:
If some can sue McDonald's because the coffee she ordered was too hot, then I'm sure we could sue the NCAA. We probably wouldn't win, but we definitely could sue.
Expand ...
It was too hot, she won the suit and McDonald's changed their operations to prevent it from happening to you. You should thank her.
 
UCDaveD said:
If some can sue McDonald's because the coffee she ordered was too hot, then I'm sure we could sue the NCAA. We probably wouldn't win, but we definitely could sue.
Expand ...
Watch Hot Coffee and you'll probably change your mind about what really happened in this case.

uconnfan68 said:
It was too hot, she won the suit and McDonald's changed their operations to prevent it from happening to you. You should thank her.
Expand ...

This.
 
UCDaveD said:
If some can sue McDonald's because the coffee she ordered was too hot, then I'm sure we could sue the NCAA.
Expand ...

If you knew what the suit was really about, you would not be so quick to call this plaintiff a "." This post aptly demonstrates how the insurance industry has won the public relations battle by misleading the general public as to the true nature of what this case was about. Because most people are too lazy to actually understand what happened, the myth continues to propagate that some lady spilled hot coffee on herself and got millions of dollars, and therefore we need to restrict lawsuits and damage awards, and take away people's rights to be heard in a court of law. I'm not insulting you, and I don't blame you for thinking this was as you are merely a product of the vast misconception about this case. The case actually turned out benefiting corporations and the insurance industry greatly in terms of the overreaction it caused for years in reduced jury verdicts and outright defendant's verdicts in all types of cases nationwide. It caused many legislatures to enact all kinds of misguided tort reform measures. I know this post will not change this misconception, but if you are interested, here is a link to the actual facts.


http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
 
I know this is way OT, but the insurance industry in the 70's went so far as to publicize a case where a guy supposedly was trimming his hedges with his lawnmower. He picked it up, and just started trimming his hedges with it. He dropped it on his foot, cutting his foot pretty badly. He sued the lawnmower company and won the proverbial "millions" of dollars. The American Trial Lawyers Association did an investigation, trying to find out more about this case. Eventually it turned out that there was not such case, but the insurance industry advocates who promulgated this justified the story as "emblematic" of the types of cases being brought by plaintiff's lawyers and the need for legal reforms in product liability cases. So the story was not true.

Sometime around 1994 or 1995 I was driving somewhere. Sebastian was on the radio. He hates lawyers. He used to get sued a lot, sexual harassment (calling the weather girl "big " until she ran off set crying, etc, etc, etc.) Anyway, Sebastian on one of his lawyer rants actually told that story. This was a story that was officially debunked in the late 70's yet it continued to thrive at least into the 90's. So, don't believe everything you read.
 
gars44 said:
So, don't believe everything you read.
Expand ...

Then how can I trust what you just wrote then? I guess I can't which means I should believe everything one writes...which means...oh boy this is going to keep me up all night.

And, tort reform sounds delicious.
 
.-.
partial said:
Then how can I trust what you just wrote then? I guess I can't which means I should believe everything one writes...which means...oh boy this is going to keep me up all night.

And, tort reform sounds delicious.
Expand ...

That's why we call you Einstein.;)
 
huskyniner said:
Watch Hot Coffee and you'll probably change your mind about what really happened in this case.



This.
Expand ...
I was going to post something, but I didn't. I'm glad someone did. Employees testified that McDonald's kept their coffee ridiculously hot so that people wouldn't refills.

Regardless, a beverage should not be so hot as to you to get skin grafts if you spill it on you.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
So, once again, somebody spilled coffee on themselves and sued. This tells me nothing new.

Guess what? Coffee is hot-don't spill it on yourself.

Just typical American BS, push the buck to someone else.
Expand ...
Man, Pinto drivers, just don't crash your car.

Typical American BS, passing the buck...
 
ConnHuskBask said:
So, once again, somebody spilled coffee on themselves and sued. This tells me nothing new.

Guess what? Coffee is hot-don't spill it on yourself.

Just typical American BS, push the buck to someone else.
Expand ...

Did you actually read the link? If not perhaps you should. If so, perhaps you should sue your third grade elementary school teacher for your lack of reading comprehension.
 
tzznandrew said:
Man, Pinto drivers, just don't crash your car.

Typical American BS, passing the buck...
Expand ...

Right, because spilling coffee on your lap is the same thing as unknowingly driving a car that bursts into flames when in a rear end collision.

CL82 said:
Did you actually read the link? If not perhaps you should. If so, perhaps you should sue your third grade elementary school teacher for your lack of reading comprehension.
Expand ...

So McDonals kept the coffee at ~180 and they ruled it should be kept cooler. However, you bought the coffee, you know its hot, and yet you still open it in a styrofoam cup on your lap, and to boot, you spill it all over yourself.

You going to sue someone if you're boiling water for pasta and you spill the pot on yourself? Sue the water company maybe? The company that made the pot?
 
.-.
ConnHuskBask said:
Right, because spilling coffee on your lap is the same thing as unknowingly driving a car that bursts into flames when in a rear end collision.



So McDonals kept the coffee at ~180 and they ruled it should be kept cooler. However, you bought the coffee, you know its hot, and yet you still open it in a styrofoam cup on your lap, and to boot, you spill it all over yourself.

You going to sue someone if you're boiling water for pasta and you spill the pot on yourself? Sue the water company maybe? The company that made the pot?
Expand ...
Well, coffee is generally not boiling--nor even close. Coffee was generally kept between 135 to 140 degrees. That would hurt if it spilled on you, but you wouldn't need skin grafts.

McDonald's was selling it at at between 180-190--ostensibly to preserve flavor, but you can't drink coffee at that heat. It would burn you.

A person can reasonably expect not to get 3rd degree burns and need skin grafts from a drink they purchase to consume--just as they can reasonably assume that their car won't burst into flames if it gets into a minor accident.

On the other hand, a person would reasonably assume that spilling boiling water on yourself would cause burning.
 
uconnfan68 said:
It was too hot, she won the suit and McDonald's changed their operations to prevent it from happening to you. You should thank her.
Expand ...
I don't drink coffee.

And all McDonald's changing their operations means is that they don't want every Forrest Gump who spills coffee on themselves taking a swing at them.
 
IIRC on the McD's coffee lawsuit (it was ~20 years ago when the case was finally settled, after lengthy litigation) what hurt McDonald's most in their case was that there had been complaints about how hot they were keeping their coffee, in some part of the country a local health department issued a demand for their restaurants to keep coffee at a lower temperature only to have internal memos from McDonalds advising to maintain the higher temps.

The defense was able to demonstrate a willful act, not merely accidental negligence in the coffee being kept as hot as it was.
 
ConnHuskBask said:
Right, because spilling coffee on your lap is the same thing as unknowingly driving a car that bursts into flames when in a rear end collision.



So McDonals kept the coffee at ~180 and they ruled it should be kept cooler. However, you bought the coffee, you know its hot, and yet you still open it in a styrofoam cup on your lap, and to boot, you spill it all over yourself.

You going to sue someone if you're boiling water for pasta and you spill the pot on yourself? Sue the water company maybe? The company that made the pot?
Expand ...

No stupid, you sue the stove!!!!
 
I don't think they would have much of a shot. The whole NCAA scheme is ultimately about voluntary membership and voluntary attendance by the students at member schools. In reality the NCAA is monopolistic and they are essentially exploiting unpaid employees who generate millions. If the day ever comes where these players are compensated for their play, they could get employee status and that would change things.

This isn't my area of expertise so others could differ, but I'd like to hear from other lawyers if they see a particular approach they think would be successful.

Edit: Forgot to address those criticizing the woman in the mcdonalds suit. I would echo the sentiments that you should probably watch the "Hot Coffee" documentary. Yes everyone knows that coffee is hot, but that isn't the point. When you go and buy coffee at other coffee shop there is an acceptable range of temperatures that people expect. If McDonalds had put "180 degree Coffee" on their menu and the woman had ordered it then it would be her fault. Coffee should never be hot enough to cause the burns that the woman suffered through. She also only asked for her medical expenses, the jury awarded her more because McDonalds had ignored past complaints and they wanted to punish McDonalds, which they deserved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,322
Messages
4,563,851
Members
10,458
Latest member
Liam Rainst


Top Bottom