Toggle sidebar

The first civil suit has just been filed at PSU

R

RonnyAtmosphere

Redshirt
Jun 4, 2007
2,883
0
0
..is if bitter old JoPa sues State Penn for wrongful termination.


I'm sure that would get his ignorant sheep back in the streets, setting fires to cars & tossing rocks @ innocent by-standers.
 
W

Woof Man Jack

Redshirt
Apr 20, 2006
946
0
0
This is unchartered territory for a university. Because Mullen can't look at a similar incident from the past and get an idea of how it plays out,,,,I think he stays put. Unless PSU comes at him with at guaranteed, ten year, 4 million per, type of contract...why would he take the chance?
 
T

therightway

Redshirt
Aug 26, 2009
1,801
0
0
He had some genetic disorder that was not found and he died during workouts. I think that they settled.
 
C

chew1095

Redshirt
Feb 1, 2009
2,039
0
0
the government is not immune from lawsuits. Some people believe this to be the case where states have enacted damage caps (much like Mississippi did a few years back). With that said, PSU is only one of many potential defendants in these cases. A savy plaintiffs lawyer (and even a not so savy one) will name anyone and any entity that could have any plausible connection or culpability and let the cards fall where they may. Obviously, some defendants have deeper pockets than others, but there is plenty potential exposure for a number of different parties. With that said, unless PSU and/or other defendantsstep up and drop some heavy coin to make this shitstorm go away (which would be the smart thing to do), these lawsuits will go on for years. Not only that, I would imagine there will be additional criminal indictments that may be handed down as well as administrative investigations continuing from damn near every state or federal agency that remotely has jurisdiction over public higher ed.
 
thatsbaseball

thatsbaseball

All-American
May 29, 2007
17,581
5,983
113
from this mess for a while. Many many investigations going on already and the NCAA could end up more involved than they really want to be if they they jump in too early. What do you think ?
 
was21

was21

Senior
May 29, 2007
9,854
522
113
to want that job at this time. I can't imagine compartmentalizing the football program from this dismal abyss. When all is said and done, they would appear to be looking for a "caretaker" for the time being, and then when the dust settles, they will then hire a PSU guy to actually bring them back to prominence...in about 25 years. Maybe Dan wouldn't mind being a caretaker of sorts...who knows?...maybe if the price is right??
 
C

chew1095

Redshirt
Feb 1, 2009
2,039
0
0
from anything that has ever occured in NCAA collegiate athletics. Off the top of my head, the potential state and federal agencies and other administrativce agencies that may or are going to investigage this:

the independent investigation being led by Louis Freeh
the Department of Education (Federal)
the State Department of Education
the State Attorney General
the Districy Attorney
the FBI
the US Attorney
the Internal Revenue Service
the State Department of Revenue
the NCAA

I cannot fathom why anyone in their right mind would want to talk into this situation right now to coach the Nitney Lions. Obviously a new coaching staff will not necessarily have to deal directly with these governing bodies, but folks are going to hanging around Penn State for a long time.
 
M

MedDawg

Senior
May 29, 2001
4,930
574
113
...meaning there is a limit to awards against them. In Mississippi, the limit is $500,000. I think I read that Pennsylvania's is $250,000, with certain exceptions. The scandal did not fit under any of the exceptions, but I've read that a PA legislator has submitting a bill to add sexual misconduct or sexual abuse to the exceptions. Won't help the Sandusky victims, but will help others if the bill becomes law.

I'm not a lawyer, but I know about this because the hospital I work at is a county hospital and has sovereign immunity. The docs here that are employees of the hospital are covered by that lawsuit limit.
 
H

HighLifeRebel

Redshirt
Dec 16, 2008
134
0
0
Of course, it depends on the law of the State, but the traditional governmental immunity doctrine states that any government is immune from civil suit from an individual plaintiff. There is usually a statute which "allows" a private individual to sue a governmental entity. The traditional "caps" for governmental entities are not actually caps but allowances. For example, in MS, it's inaccurate to state that an individual plaintiff is limited to recovering 500k from a governmental entity. It is more accurate to state that an individual plaintiff is allowed to recover up to 500k for a specific claim which falls into the Mississippi Tort Claims Act guidelines. In other words, the government is immune from suit, unless the government says that they aren't. Not the other way around.
 
M

MedDawg

Senior
May 29, 2001
4,930
574
113
HighLifeRebel said:
Of course, it depends on the law of the State, but the traditional governmental immunity doctrine states that any government is immune from civil suit from an individual plaintiff. There is usually a statute which "allows" a private individual to sue a governmental entity. The traditional "caps" for governmental entities are not actually caps but allowances. For example, in MS, it's inaccurate to state that an individual plaintiff is limited to recovering 500k from a governmental entity. It is more accurate to state that an individual plaintiff is allowed to recover up to 500k for a specific claim which falls into the Mississippi Tort Claims Act guidelines. In other words, the government is immune from suit, unless the government says that they aren't. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification (but it sounds like the same thing, just more wordy). In your opinion, will Penn State's sovereign immunity (if it works like Mississippi's) keep PSU from having to pay many millions to plaintiff's suing over the Sandusky mess?
 
H

HighLifeRebel

Redshirt
Dec 16, 2008
134
0
0
My response was more to the post above which stated that there is no governmental immunity, just caps. I was trying to be nice by saying that it was inaccurate. You have to start with the government being immune, which it almost always is, then try and find an exception to the immunity. These exceptions are usually fount in Tort Claims Acts such as the MTCA and the Federal Tort Claims Act.<div>
</div><div>The first thing Penn State is going to argue is that they aren't responsible for Sandusky's actions because he either a) wasn't working for them at the time of the incidents or b) even if he was working for them, his actions were intentional violations of the law and he was acting outside the course and scope of his duties as their employee or agent. Even if the plaintiff's lose there, they will go after the people above Sandusky and argue that they negligently allowed this to happen over and over again when they knew or should have known of this guy's prior conduct.</div><div>
</div><div>If this were to happen in MS, and I don't have the MTCA in front of me, but each individual plaintiff would be limited to 500k.</div>
 
B

BiscuitEater

Redshirt
Aug 29, 2009
4,178
0
36
shsdawg said:
their athletic funding organisation isn't immune.
Click to expand...

but next year will be interesting financially for PSU. The way the university has been set up, the atheletic department pays all of their bills with the revenue they bring in. This also pays for ALL the other sports at Penn State. They don't use any State or other university funding.

Joe Pa only made $1Ma year and many other coaches make less than the 'going rate.' The coming years will get tougher. To buy out this staff and bring in a staff at a increase will be a challange. Any $$ in civil suits that name the Athletic Dept are problematic.

Biscuit
 
C

chew1095

Redshirt
Feb 1, 2009
2,039
0
0
Every cause of action against anyone, any entity or any government is based either on statute or common law. So technically everyone is immune from a potential lawsuit unless its allowed by statute or the common law. But thanks for your mini-treatise nonetheless. As for the damage issue, your characterization is more accurate and I stand corrected. I practice corporate/tax/M&A law; whereas, you sound a very savvy plaintiffs lawyer, so I defer to your expertise on trying to get your hands on other people's money.<div>
</div><div>As for your final point, if this were in Mississippi, the plaintiffs would only be limited to 500K to the extent that they sued the State of Mississippi or some agency or branch of the government. I know you intended for your statement to be defendant specific as to claims brought solely under the MTCA, but the implication of your statement suggests that the plaintiffs would be limited to 500K if a suit of this nature were brought in Mississippi regardless of the defendant. Clearly that is not an accurate statement.</div>
 
H

HighLifeRebel

Redshirt
Dec 16, 2008
134
0
0
That's not accurate. If you sue the government based on common law principles, then the government is immune. This immunity is pulled away when and if there is a statute that allows you to sue based on common law principles. In other words, if you sue based on common law principles (i.e. torts such as assault, battery, and negligence), then the government is immune. With ordinary citizens it is the other way around. You are not immune to any suit based on common law principles unless there is a statute that protects you.<div>
</div><div>I am not a plaintiff's attorney.</div><div>
</div><div>I believe the question that was posed was if PSU were in MS or if MS law applied to PSU, would the MTCA prevent PSU from having to pay exorbitant settlements or jury awards. Since PSU is a governmental entity, then they would be protected by the MTCA, and PSU would only have to pay 500k to each claimant (again, I don't have the MTCA in front of me, and this may be a bit too broad. I am not sure if the 500 allowance is a total allowance or if it is per occurence. If it is per occurrrence, then they may have to pay more to someone who claims multiple occurrences. Regardless, the point remains the same. PSU would be protected). The question itself did not refer to any particular individual entity that would not be protected by the MTCA. Therefore, my statement was accurate.
<div>
</div><div>
</div></div>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom