Is this lawsuit justified?

[farmkid]

2 million? Conceivably, over a lifetime. One million even more so, but either way the bulk of that would be eaten up in the cost of living over a lifetime. However, before one can think of such values on a life, is it money the family would have gotten from him in his lifetime? Very unlikely. Most of it would have been buying a home, car, perhaps supporting a family, and all the incidentals that make up the gross cost of living for decades. That assuming he didn't die from any other host of things in life even before graduating college.

$2 million over a lifetime actually isn't all that much. It's only about $50K per year for an average which is certainly not outrageous.

The family wants accountability and sees it in terms of dollars at the moment. Whether that makes their suit seem reasonable or not, or their evaluation of recompense appropriate remains to be seen. His GPA and and trumpet playing have nothing to do with the determination of fault, of course, and as a basis for awarding a settlement there is no reason to think those factors would amount to a life that made 2 million. Many with better scores and hobbies go no where after college, and some who did worse thrive better outside academia.

I'm sure they want what this money will not give them the fulfillment of seeing their son go through life. If they win, it changes nothing for them but seeing a punishment on people they see responsible for their son's death. One which they probably know he had a large hand in and are desperate to not want to accept. If they lose, the pain they are in is just going to be worse for them. Their son was riding where he shouldn't have been by campus direction in an area used for multiple purposes not just biking. He could have as easily badly injured someone on the way down as gotten killed as happened. I'm not connected to this so it's easy for me to say that, but I think it's something his family needs to think about to really get past this tragedy.

The family even now says they have no hard feelings toward those who set it up and don't blame them. I think what happened here is that some personal injury attorney saw a potential payday and convinced the family that someone else has liability for this accident and that they should sue. They're really after the deep pockets of the university, but had to add the other kids to it to make it more legitimate.

 

[Kirby]

So there are signs posted for bikes to stay off the hill, but are there signs, or other rules to prevent stringing slacklines, or hammocks, or anything else between the trees?
If not, then the slackliners did nothing wrong, and those students should be off the hook. The University may have some liability, especially if bikes regularly ignore the posted warning signs.
Regardless, it's a tragic accident, and I don't think the family should be suing for what the student may or may not have made during his lifetime.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

A lawsuit against those who set up the slackline does seem justified. Even if the bikers share some of the responsibility, I don't think (given its prevalent use for biking) that they share most of the blame. I suppose it's possible he saw the slackline from the beginning and stupidly thought he could duck under it, but there's no reason to assume that at this stage.

Against the university? That depends on whether they had reason to know of the risk. How often are slacklines set up? How often do bikes use it? Should they have seen the possibility of a slackline causing injury to a biker? It's possible they needed to supervise the area better or have some policy on this issue. My guess is the suit will not be overly successful (although it'll probably settle for some sum above zero).

 

[Trekker4747]

I know when a person is seriously injured to impair the future ability to work they can sue for lost future wages based probably on some kind of algorithm that calculates how much a person would make over the course of their lifetime.

But is something really applicable in this case? Can you really sue someone because the now deceased victim probably could have made x-amount of money over their life time?

I mean, it's one thing if a worker sues their employer over faulty equipment or working conditions that cripples him to the point of not being able to work. The employer did something wrong, it harmed the employee, and as a result he can no longer work.

It's another if something is just a pure accident between two unrelated parties.

 

[bluedana]

Regardless of the signage, if the university was aware that cyclists used that hill and that the hazard existed, it can be held liable for the accident. It's reasonably foreseeable that cyclist would meet slackline, and the parents may very well prove that the university breached its duty of care. As for lifetime anticipated earnings, that is a common way of assessing damages, since you cannot actually put a value on a life. It's straight up actuarial computation.

 

[farmkid]

Okay, but why does the university have a "duty of care"? Why is it the responsibility of the university to protect people from their own bad decisions? And if it is, where's the line along the continuum of stupid past which the university is no longer liable?

 

[the 4th hanson bro]

But is something really applicable in this case? Can you really sue someone because the now deceased victim probably could have made x-amount of money over their life time?
.

It's called The human life value approach, typically used in determining an amount of life insurance that, at a specified rate of return, will produce the insured's income moving forward while leaving the principal intact.

So if I earn $50k and I think long term I can earn 5% on the money, my human life value would be $1,000,000.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

But is something really applicable in this case? Can you really sue someone because the now deceased victim probably could have made x-amount of money over their life time?

Yeah, that's basically what a wrongful death lawsuit is. Granted, I don't think the jury actually cares what you would have actually brought in for the plaintiffs, but that's the underlying justification.

It's also why, for plaintiff attorneys, it's better for the person who dies to be a little bit older (easier to establish earnings) and to be crippled for life, not killed (it can be a fairly cynical business).

 

[MacLeod]

Doesn't it also help if the person is employed? then they have a basis of determing lost earnings i.e their current salary.

 

[Gov Kodos]

(it can be a fairly cynical business).

What? The practice of law isn't My Little Pony in real life?

But seriously, I don't think it's cynical. When older, there is the life lead which can give some guidance on the person's future. Sure some folks make huge changes in their lives but most don't. That's just playing averages, I guess. And the person still being alive and crippled, well the injured party gets the benefit of judgement and is the one most directly affected by whatever was seen as the catalyst of the injury. I can well see cynicism sinking in over time for lawyers haggling through this stuff, though.

 

[Pingfah]

Hard to say if it is justified from a simple rundown of the most basic facts.

I'm fairly sure this is what the courts are supposed to decide.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Doesn't it also help if the person is employed? then they have a basis of determing lost earnings i.e their current salary.

Yeah, that's part of the reason why an older person is better.

(it can be a fairly cynical business).

What? The practice of law isn't My Little Pony in real life?

But seriously, I don't think it's cynical. When older, there is the life lead which can give some guidance on the person's future. Sure some folks make huge changes in their lives but most don't. That's just playing averages, I guess. And the person still being alive and crippled, well the injured party gets the benefit of judgement and is the one most directly affected by whatever was seen as the catalyst of the injury. I can well see cynicism sinking in over time for lawyers haggling through this stuff, though.

Well, the problem is a lawyer and hears a case and goes "Alright! This person is crippled for life in agonizing pain, that's wonderful!" If they had merely died, it wouldn't be as big a deal.

That being said, I do think they legitimately believe many of their causes, so I do think the outrage is directed towards those that caused the condition. They're just still going to be slightly disappointed when an infant is killed compared to an adult crippled.

 

[Yoda]

When in college I took a pretty nasty spill off my bike after visiting friends at another school. Speed bump on a hill, unpainted, serious lack of lighting at night. Luckily landed in a way where I took some scrapes and bruises and moved on with my life. Visited again the next week. There was a new street light, and the speed bump was painted bright yellow. Maybe a coincidence, but I'd like to think some school official saw me flying over my handle bars, lurked in the shadows out of sight until I left, sighed and said to himself "Fuck we almost got sued!"

Anyway... Slacklining? Really? That's a thing? Ultimate Frisbee wasn't douchey enough for America's institutions of higher learning?

 

[Trekker4747]

Doesn't it also help if the person is employed? then they have a basis of determing lost earnings i.e their current salary.

Sort of my thoughts. If you're employed in a career or something then there's a basis for determining "lost wages." But if you're some college kid working part-time at McDonalds to work your way through school how to you determine lost wages in a career?

 

[bluedana]

Okay, but why does the university have a "duty of care"? Why is it the responsibility of the university to protect people from their own bad decisions? And if it is, where's the line along the continuum of stupid past which the university is no longer liable?

If you own property and allow other people (whether the general public or just invited guests) to be on that property, then you have a duty of care to make sure that the property is safe, at least against reasonably foreseeable hazards and dangers. There are a few ways to get around liability, including if there was no way to expect someone to do what he did; if the person himself was reckless and more to blame for what happened than you are; or if you did everything you reasonably could to make the property safe and it happened anyway.

 

[TheSeeker]

Anyway... Slacklining? Really? That's a thing? Ultimate Frisbee wasn't douchey enough for America's institutions of higher learning?

Stay classy.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

I know when a person is seriously injured to impair the future ability to work they can sue for lost future wages based probably on some kind of algorithm that calculates how much a person would make over the course of their lifetime.

But is something really applicable in this case? Can you really sue someone because the now deceased victim probably could have made x-amount of money over their life time?

I mean, it's one thing if a worker sues their employer over faulty equipment or working conditions that cripples him to the point of not being able to work. The employer did something wrong, it harmed the employee, and as a result he can no longer work.

It's another if something is just a pure accident between two unrelated parties.

Yes you can. And it happens all the time. You're assuming this was a "pure accident" yet the facts aren't all in.

 

[Alpha Romeo]

But is something really applicable in this case? Can you really sue someone because the now deceased victim probably could have made x-amount of money over their life time?

Yeah, that's basically what a wrongful death lawsuit is. Granted, I don't think the jury actually cares what you would have actually brought in for the plaintiffs, but that's the underlying justification.

It's also why, for plaintiff attorneys, it's better for the person who dies to be a little bit older (easier to establish earnings) and to be crippled for life, not killed (it can be a fairly cynical business).

Or you have an expert testify as to what his earning could be coupled with testimony from a loved one or other source as to what he wanted to be.

 

[MacLeod]

Yes but you don't always end up with the career you wanted, so can you really use that as a basis? Are we all doing the career we wanted

 

[Alpha Romeo]

Yes but you don't always end up with the career you wanted, so can you really use that as a basis? Are we all doing the career we wanted

Yes you can. It may be easier with the kid if he was in college already studying a particular subject.