2021 MLB Regular Season thread

That’s true and he could also have gotten them on his own. But in court it doesn’t matter The what could have happened, it’s what did you actually do. Regardless of his demons, members of the organization actively participated in providing the things that took his life instead of contacting people who could have given him help or just saying no.

 

Of course they are complicit. But the buck stops with him. If he doesn't take the drugs he obtained, he doesn't die.

 

But the fact that they gave the drugs to him is enough. That he took them is only material in as much as that’s how he died. The family has to prove
1) the organization owed him a duty of care that they did not provide. Giving him drugs that killed him certainly is not providing a duty of care
2) they acted in a way that failed to live up to the duty of care. Again, they or their agents gave him drugs and did not report to superiors that a member of the organization was taking potentially lethal and certainly illegal drugs
3) by not giving a duty of care, a death was caused. Again, by participating in the act, they weren’t giving their duty of care and ultimately the act they were participating in caused the death.
4) damages.

 

And I should say that is my lay understanding of it. Civil liability isn’t as rigid as criminal. But if someone with better understanding of the law *cough* QT *cough* I’ll be happy to revise my stance.

 

I'm not arguing the law, just (in my world) who should be ultimately accountable. He took the drugs. No one forced him to kill himself.

 

And that’s fair. I think there is a little needing to deflect blame away from a loved one. I see where you’re going with that.

Conversely, I think the question needs to be asked within the organization how did it get to that point before someone said something to put a stop to it? If anything good is going to come from the suit it will be a reminder to teams that they need to be cognizant of how people are doing.

 

Spartan, you're ready for the Bar exam!! (Okay, kinda)

So in order to assert liability against someone, that person has to have some duty/obligation to you. Just because someone was negligent (did something unreasonable/below the standard of care) doesn't meant that they are automatically liable to you.

Did they owe you a duty?

So if your buddy gives you drugs, don't think that they have liability. You asked for them, you got them, and unfortunately you're dead (Len Bias).

Now the question is, did the organization owe him a duty of care? I think they did.

Did they give him too much? Would a reasonable organization have done something different? I haven't seen enough of the facts.

Did the organization do what they could have and were deceived?

Was Skaggs fooling someone?

 

Trevor Bauer Accused Of Assault, MLB Star Denies Woman's Claim

 

Hey, TMZ used the term star correctly!

 

Damn I knew I should have made argument the Angels owed the duty of care and not just assumed it as fact. That’s why Mrs. Highlander-Spartan will sit for the bar next summer and not me.

 

Obligatory denial, with a twist.

 

The intersection of law and drugs was too much for me on this subject.