Introducing
Your new presentation assistant.
Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.
Trending searches
1. Proper instruction was provided
2. Supervision was provided
3. N/A
1. Thomas was 16, most experienced player, he has a high level of responsibility (Soc owed to self because he properly knows how to play)
2/3. Accurate, adequate instruction was provided for football has inherent risks
5. Football is dangerous
6. Signed form acknowledging inherent risks
7. There was supervision (coaches, refs)
8. Adequate amount of supervision was present
9. Injury was foreseeable
10. No personal prior accidents but football accidents are common
11. Plaintiff contributed to H/L as he didn't tackle properly
1. Doc existed as the coach (school board) is
an occupier and must protect safety of students
2. Hamilton and Thomas both owed Soc
3. Is a foreseeable injury as football is dangerous
4. There is a direct connection between plaintiffs conduct and the result in injury. There is a connection between the defendant and the result in injury as it occurred during a school event, but this connection isn't a direct contribution to injury
5. Contributory negligence from plaintiff as he didn't follow proper instruction
Thomas: Follow instructions given (proper tackling)
Hamilton: make sure players understand training and inherent risks. Provide a medical test and waiver
Non-Pecuniary:
a) Pain & Suffering- severe injury for the rest of Thomas' life
b) Loss of Enjoyment of Life- can no longer do many activities
Special Damages:
Installing wheelchair accessible equipment (ramp, stair climber, new car)
General Damages:
Future medical care, lost wages.
Thomas: must understand inherent risks (signed permission form and pass medical test to ensure own safety
Hamilton: provide proper training and knowledgeable coaches