This is sad and crazy... ND student videographer dies when tower collapses.

[NapoleonDynamite]

Just saw this - a 20-year-old Notre Dame student videographer died tonight at practice when the practice field tower collapsed.<div>
</div><div>If I read this correctly, the winds were up to 51 MPH. I'm no expert, but that seems very dangerous to send someone up in the tower to start with.</div><div>
</div><div>http://sportsillustrated....7/nd.tower.ap/index.html</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>

 

[GrantGannon]

And making comments about how terrifying it was being up there.

 

[mstatefanatic]

and I've been around college practices, so I know what the general attitude is about injuries and the like, but the fact they practiced after the tower fell is an absolute travesty. A tower falling over is not the same as someone going down with an ankle injury. I just can't believe they let him stay up there in that wind. Those scissor lifts are made to hold up to only like 25 mile per hour winds. I'm not sure they shouldn't fire Brian Kelly's ***, and I hope his family sues the school for major money.

 

[McDawg]

[No message]

 

[Dawgfan61]

I failed to read anywhere in the above link they continued to practice after the tower fell.

 

[mstatefanatic]

one of their writers had an account of what happened. Said they kept practicing 30 minutes after the incident.

 

[slickdawg]

Notre Dame values its lame and irrelevant football program more than human life.

 

[jakldawg]

Prelude to a Tragedy.<div>
</div><div>This is depressing and senseless.</div><div>The Brian Kelly snark can wait for another day.</div>

 

[bulliegolfer]

in winds like that. Just common sense. I hope they get the hell sued out of them.

 

[patdog]

And have fun paying that multi-million dollar lawsuit that's about to come.Brian Kelley should lose his job for this. Actually, I'm not sure it might not be criminal negligence for him to put a kid 50 ft. up in a scissor lift in 50 MPH winds when the warnings say they shouldn't be used in winds over 25 MPH. I can't imagine how terrifying it had to have been for that kid to be up there.

 

[beachbumdawg]

if not that will likely be a double whammy

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

If the student voiced concern and Kelly said something like "Don't be a pansy," then I could easily see criminal negligence.

 

[boomboommsu]

He's a football coach, not a construction foreman.I guarantee you ND has at least one, and probably more, people on the payroll specifically as safety specialists. That scissor lift didn't appear magically. Someone requested it, and someone approved it, and someone wrote the check. At some point someone on ND payroll was informed of the safety requirements. IF they were relayed to the coach, and if he ignored them/forgot them, then yes it's his fault. But it's not his job or capability to decide what conditions are or are not safe for industrial equipment.

Those damn things sway like crazy even indoors. How are you supposed to know that now it's swaying too much to be safe? The student sure as hell better not have been the only one in that thing. Everywhere I've ever been in one had trained operators. If the school just pointed a student at an industrial lift and didn't train him etc., then yes they'll be sued like crazy.

 

[patdog]

I'm not a construction foreman either. But I'm not a complete idiot. And I sure as hell know better than to tell someone to get 50 ft up in a scissor lift in 50 MPH winds.

 

[Shmuley]

Not sure about Indiana law on contrib but the texts unfortunately show the kid recognized the danger beforehand. Shouldn't be a complete bar to recovery, but could affect fault determination and resulting compensation to wrongful death benes.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

For all we know he was told that everything was okay and he would be fine before he got in the lift.

 

[TUSK.sixpack]

nm

 

[Shmuley]

Just saying the defense (ND's carrier, the manufacturer's carrier) will argue whatever they can to reduce claim value.

 

[TUSK.sixpack]

not alleviate...?

 

[Shmuley]

serves to allow the victim's benes to recover without regard to the victim's own contrib, if it can be shown that the defendants had the last and best opportunity to avoid the accident. There are numerous factors that go into the findings necessary to support this counter-argument to contrib.

But to answer your question, the practical reality is that this matter will not be tried. The arguments will be raised in the context of settlement discussions, most likely in an arbitration setting as a result of the arb provision within the kid's employment agreement with ND.