Home
Forums
New Posts
Illini Basketball
Illini Football
Sports Talk
Log in
Register
What's new
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Sports
Illini Football
MSU-Michigan Postgame Scuffle
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="the juiceman cometh" data-source="post: 1808811" data-attributes="member: 747321"><p>Riiiiiiiight. Sorry in advance everyone for the long response filled with lawyer speak but armchair lawyering often means complete disinformation, and</p><p></p><p><img src="https://media2.giphy.com/media/g3npXQkjKFb7W9ZkYF/200.gif" alt="I Dont Like That Bill Burr GIF by Saturday Night Live" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>On depositions, sure you can depose almost anyone you want. The problem is actually being able to use that testimony. It has to be relevant. And by that I mean legally relevant, not relevant to internet message board users. In most jurisdictions that means for a prior incident to be admissible it has to be pretty much the same incident, and it has to be relatively recent. Let's say 10 years. So show me the incident where a player was cornered and beaten in that tunnel in the last 10 years. That gets in. The Penn St. PBJ incident, or OSU shouting match, probably don't.</p><p></p><p>Also subsequent remedial measures (i.e. fixing a hazard after the fact) are pretty much absolutely never admissible as evidence of the hazard. The obvious reason for this is that if you could use it as evidence nobody would ever remediate a hazard for fear it would be used against them. And I don't even know what "did they like to intimidate their opposition" means or what it has to do with this. Football teams always try to intimidate their opposition, I really just don't understand the point here.</p><p></p><p>Btw, did you google "open and obvious"? Because if you're going to use the Penn St. incident as proof Michigan should have been on notice, you're setting yourself up for a potential summary judgment on those grounds. The Michigan player would have also been on notice, so the hazard would have been open and obvious. Case over.</p><p></p><p>And if you think juries are going to have sympathy for 20 year old men beating on another 20 year old man then congratulations, you obviously have little to no experience with our criminal justice system, may we all be so lucky. </p><p></p><p>This is not to say there's zero risk to Michigan. You never know. But in my opinion this is one where if I'm in Michigan’s legal office I'm not really worrying about it.</p><p></p><p><img src="https://media0.giphy.com/media/13uqSsDkBBbgg8/200.gif" alt="Relaxed Chill GIF" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="the juiceman cometh, post: 1808811, member: 747321"] Riiiiiiiight. Sorry in advance everyone for the long response filled with lawyer speak but armchair lawyering often means complete disinformation, and [IMG alt="I Dont Like That Bill Burr GIF by Saturday Night Live"]https://media2.giphy.com/media/g3npXQkjKFb7W9ZkYF/200.gif[/IMG] On depositions, sure you can depose almost anyone you want. The problem is actually being able to use that testimony. It has to be relevant. And by that I mean legally relevant, not relevant to internet message board users. In most jurisdictions that means for a prior incident to be admissible it has to be pretty much the same incident, and it has to be relatively recent. Let's say 10 years. So show me the incident where a player was cornered and beaten in that tunnel in the last 10 years. That gets in. The Penn St. PBJ incident, or OSU shouting match, probably don't. Also subsequent remedial measures (i.e. fixing a hazard after the fact) are pretty much absolutely never admissible as evidence of the hazard. The obvious reason for this is that if you could use it as evidence nobody would ever remediate a hazard for fear it would be used against them. And I don't even know what "did they like to intimidate their opposition" means or what it has to do with this. Football teams always try to intimidate their opposition, I really just don't understand the point here. Btw, did you google "open and obvious"? Because if you're going to use the Penn St. incident as proof Michigan should have been on notice, you're setting yourself up for a potential summary judgment on those grounds. The Michigan player would have also been on notice, so the hazard would have been open and obvious. Case over. And if you think juries are going to have sympathy for 20 year old men beating on another 20 year old man then congratulations, you obviously have little to no experience with our criminal justice system, may we all be so lucky. This is not to say there's zero risk to Michigan. You never know. But in my opinion this is one where if I'm in Michigan’s legal office I'm not really worrying about it. [IMG alt="Relaxed Chill GIF"]https://media0.giphy.com/media/13uqSsDkBBbgg8/200.gif[/IMG] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Sports
Illini Football
MSU-Michigan Postgame Scuffle
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…