GivemTheAxe said:

---

mbBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Typical Cal fans. Enter at your own risk. You feel uncomfortable don't come. I will be there. Just as you sell homes as is with disclosures, you should be able to sell tickets with at your own risk entrance and disclosures.

---

There is no "typical" about this-don't try to make this something that it isn't. A few people expressed legal concerns, and, even when I asked a couple of times, no one of a legal background gave us anything close to examples of this liability.
No one's opinion here will affect the decision that is made, one that is going to be exactly as you described anyway.

---

Once the State and City of Berkeley permit full capacity, the issue of liability re: the virus disappears. It is incumbent upon every individual to make an informed decision regarding whether they want to attend the games. If they choose to attend, they assume all the risk re: COVID.

As an aside, the Giants will begin permitting full capacity at Oracle Park in late June.

---

This to me, not being a lawyer, is the most logical scenario/conclusion; they, by law, are not doing anything wrong. I don't get any of this McDonald's conversation or comparison that relies on some negligence, which is clearly a stretch for the Cal game scenario: you order a cup of coffee with the expectation that it will be safe to do so...what "assumptions" am I making in terms of going to a Cal game in September?
Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death. The Trump rally in Oklahoma, (masks optional, no social distancing concerns) is much more tied to deaths than anything that could happen at CMS. Again, did anyone seek damages?

---

It might help if you checked out the internet. You can easily find tons of information about all types of lawsuits filed by a lot of parties against other parties related to COVID (including claims for alleged harm because the plaintiffs were harmed by the defendants failure to protect he plaintiffs from the direct or indirect impact of COVID. Many websites provide that info to name a few: MDLaw; law.com; Nolo law, JDsupra.

There is also information about legislation passed by a number of states to provide protections to certain classes of defendants on certain conditions (legislation that was deemed necessary because the high volume of such lawsuits.)

Finally there is a lot of information about other potential defendants who have taken different steps to protect themselves from such litigation.

---

I was asking others to support their points, I wasn't trying to prove a point.
I imagine those, and other cases aren't really in context unless they happened within the last week or two, because of the vaccine. Anyone who goes to CMS has the choice and the access to get vaccinated...that obviously wasn't true 7 months ago....

mbBear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

mbBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Typical Cal fans. Enter at your own risk. You feel uncomfortable don't come. I will be there. Just as you sell homes as is with disclosures, you should be able to sell tickets with at your own risk entrance and disclosures.

---

There is no "typical" about this-don't try to make this something that it isn't. A few people expressed legal concerns, and, even when I asked a couple of times, no one of a legal background gave us anything close to examples of this liability.
No one's opinion here will affect the decision that is made, one that is going to be exactly as you described anyway.

---

Once the State and City of Berkeley permit full capacity, the issue of liability re: the virus disappears. It is incumbent upon every individual to make an informed decision regarding whether they want to attend the games. If they choose to attend, they assume all the risk re: COVID.

As an aside, the Giants will begin permitting full capacity at Oracle Park in late June.

---

This to me, not being a lawyer, is the most logical scenario/conclusion; they, by law, are not doing anything wrong. I don't get any of this McDonald's conversation or comparison that relies on some negligence, which is clearly a stretch for the Cal game scenario: you order a cup of coffee with the expectation that it will be safe to do so...what "assumptions" am I making in terms of going to a Cal game in September?
Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death. The Trump rally in Oklahoma, (masks optional, no social distancing concerns) is much more tied to deaths than anything that could happen at CMS. Again, did anyone seek damages?

---

It might help if you checked out the internet. You can easily find tons of information about all types of lawsuits filed by a lot of parties against other parties related to COVID (including claims for alleged harm because the plaintiffs were harmed by the defendants failure to protect he plaintiffs from the direct or indirect impact of COVID. Many websites provide that info to name a few: MDLaw; law.com; Nolo law, JDsupra.

There is also information about legislation passed by a number of states to provide protections to certain classes of defendants on certain conditions (legislation that was deemed necessary because the high volume of such lawsuits.)

Finally there is a lot of information about other potential defendants who have taken different steps to protect themselves from such litigation.

---

I was asking others to support their points, I wasn't trying to prove a point.
I imagine those, and other cases aren't really in context unless they happened within the last week or two, because of the vaccine. Anyone who goes to CMS has the choice and the access to get vaccinated...that obviously wasn't true 7 months ago....

---

In coming to your conclusion what is or is not relevant, just remember your own prefatory admission, "Not being a lawyer..."

GivemTheAxe said:

---

mbBear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

mbBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Typical Cal fans. Enter at your own risk. You feel uncomfortable don't come. I will be there. Just as you sell homes as is with disclosures, you should be able to sell tickets with at your own risk entrance and disclosures.

---

There is no "typical" about this-don't try to make this something that it isn't. A few people expressed legal concerns, and, even when I asked a couple of times, no one of a legal background gave us anything close to examples of this liability.
No one's opinion here will affect the decision that is made, one that is going to be exactly as you described anyway.

---

Once the State and City of Berkeley permit full capacity, the issue of liability re: the virus disappears. It is incumbent upon every individual to make an informed decision regarding whether they want to attend the games. If they choose to attend, they assume all the risk re: COVID.

As an aside, the Giants will begin permitting full capacity at Oracle Park in late June.

---

This to me, not being a lawyer, is the most logical scenario/conclusion; they, by law, are not doing anything wrong. I don't get any of this McDonald's conversation or comparison that relies on some negligence, which is clearly a stretch for the Cal game scenario: you order a cup of coffee with the expectation that it will be safe to do so...what "assumptions" am I making in terms of going to a Cal game in September?
Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death. The Trump rally in Oklahoma, (masks optional, no social distancing concerns) is much more tied to deaths than anything that could happen at CMS. Again, did anyone seek damages?

---

It might help if you checked out the internet. You can easily find tons of information about all types of lawsuits filed by a lot of parties against other parties related to COVID (including claims for alleged harm because the plaintiffs were harmed by the defendants failure to protect he plaintiffs from the direct or indirect impact of COVID. Many websites provide that info to name a few: MDLaw; law.com; Nolo law, JDsupra.

There is also information about legislation passed by a number of states to provide protections to certain classes of defendants on certain conditions (legislation that was deemed necessary because the high volume of such lawsuits.)

Finally there is a lot of information about other potential defendants who have taken different steps to protect themselves from such litigation.

---

I was asking others to support their points, I wasn't trying to prove a point.
I imagine those, and other cases aren't really in context unless they happened within the last week or two, because of the vaccine. Anyone who goes to CMS has the choice and the access to get vaccinated...that obviously wasn't true 7 months ago....

---

In coming to your conclusion what is or is not relevant, just remember your own prefatory admission, "Not being a lawyer..."

---

The point of which was to be challenged, or corrected on some fundamental point. Not any different than trusting the science...

mbBear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

mbBear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

mbBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Typical Cal fans. Enter at your own risk. You feel uncomfortable don't come. I will be there. Just as you sell homes as is with disclosures, you should be able to sell tickets with at your own risk entrance and disclosures.

---

There is no "typical" about this-don't try to make this something that it isn't. A few people expressed legal concerns, and, even when I asked a couple of times, no one of a legal background gave us anything close to examples of this liability.
No one's opinion here will affect the decision that is made, one that is going to be exactly as you described anyway.

---

Once the State and City of Berkeley permit full capacity, the issue of liability re: the virus disappears. It is incumbent upon every individual to make an informed decision regarding whether they want to attend the games. If they choose to attend, they assume all the risk re: COVID.

As an aside, the Giants will begin permitting full capacity at Oracle Park in late June.

---

This to me, not being a lawyer, is the most logical scenario/conclusion; they, by law, are not doing anything wrong. I don't get any of this McDonald's conversation or comparison that relies on some negligence, which is clearly a stretch for the Cal game scenario: you order a cup of coffee with the expectation that it will be safe to do so...what "assumptions" am I making in terms of going to a Cal game in September?
Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death. The Trump rally in Oklahoma, (masks optional, no social distancing concerns) is much more tied to deaths than anything that could happen at CMS. Again, did anyone seek damages?

---

It might help if you checked out the internet. You can easily find tons of information about all types of lawsuits filed by a lot of parties against other parties related to COVID (including claims for alleged harm because the plaintiffs were harmed by the defendants failure to protect he plaintiffs from the direct or indirect impact of COVID. Many websites provide that info to name a few: MDLaw; law.com; Nolo law, JDsupra.

There is also information about legislation passed by a number of states to provide protections to certain classes of defendants on certain conditions (legislation that was deemed necessary because the high volume of such lawsuits.)

Finally there is a lot of information about other potential defendants who have taken different steps to protect themselves from such litigation.

---

I was asking others to support their points, I wasn't trying to prove a point.
I imagine those, and other cases aren't really in context unless they happened within the last week or two, because of the vaccine. Anyone who goes to CMS has the choice and the access to get vaccinated...that obviously wasn't true 7 months ago....

---

In coming to your conclusion what is or is not relevant, just remember your own prefatory admission, "Not being a lawyer..."

---

The point of which was to be challenged, or corrected on some fundamental point. Not any different than trusting the science...

---

I will give this one last attempt to get through to you.
in you post of 6-1-21 you stated: "Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death."
I referred you to a number of sites that reported cases where the plaintiffs sued the defendants for failing to keep them or their loved ones from the risk of harm, including death,

In your post of 6-3-2021 you reply and discount all the cases that were mentioned in those sites because you "imagine those, and other cases aren't really in context within the last week or two, because of the vaccine".

So once your original challenge failed miserably and a number of cases were found, you change your strategy and now want to focus only on cases that have been filed after the vaccines have been available. You want to ignore all those cases because they "aren't really in context"

The point of my reference to your admission that you are not a lawyer is two-fold.

First, if you were an trained and experienced attorney you would know that those cases take a long time to be litigated and come to resolution. Then they take time to be published in reports so that other lawyers can find them.

Second, since you are not a trained and experienced attorney, you are not in a position to decide when and which cases are not relevant. You can't just challenge a whole army of cases by saying that they are not relevant because they too old or occurred when time were different. you must prepare legal briefs pointing out how each of the cases is not relevant. it is up to the judge to decide what cases are or are not relevant.

mbBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Typical Cal fans. Enter at your own risk. You feel uncomfortable don't come. I will be there. Just as you sell homes as is with disclosures, you should be able to sell tickets with at your own risk entrance and disclosures.

---

There is no "typical" about this-don't try to make this something that it isn't. A few people expressed legal concerns, and, even when I asked a couple of times, no one of a legal background gave us anything close to examples of this liability.
No one's opinion here will affect the decision that is made, one that is going to be exactly as you described anyway.

---

Once the State and City of Berkeley permit full capacity, the issue of liability re: the virus disappears. It is incumbent upon every individual to make an informed decision regarding whether they want to attend the games. If they choose to attend, they assume all the risk re: COVID.

As an aside, the Giants will begin permitting full capacity at Oracle Park in late June.

---

This to me, not being a lawyer, is the most logical scenario/conclusion; they, by law, are not doing anything wrong. I don't get any of this McDonald's conversation or comparison that relies on some negligence, which is clearly a stretch for the Cal game scenario: you order a cup of coffee with the expectation that it will be safe to do so...what "assumptions" am I making in terms of going to a Cal game in September?
Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death. The Trump rally in Oklahoma, (masks optional, no social distancing concerns) is much more tied to deaths than anything that could happen at CMS. Again, did anyone seek damages?

---

The BLM protests, riots, and lootings across multiple cities last year were also unsafe and caused major damage. But the media never mentions it, I wonder why?

GivemTheAxe said:

---

mbBear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

mbBear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

mbBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Typical Cal fans. Enter at your own risk. You feel uncomfortable don't come. I will be there. Just as you sell homes as is with disclosures, you should be able to sell tickets with at your own risk entrance and disclosures.

---

There is no "typical" about this-don't try to make this something that it isn't. A few people expressed legal concerns, and, even when I asked a couple of times, no one of a legal background gave us anything close to examples of this liability.
No one's opinion here will affect the decision that is made, one that is going to be exactly as you described anyway.

---

Once the State and City of Berkeley permit full capacity, the issue of liability re: the virus disappears. It is incumbent upon every individual to make an informed decision regarding whether they want to attend the games. If they choose to attend, they assume all the risk re: COVID.

As an aside, the Giants will begin permitting full capacity at Oracle Park in late June.

---

This to me, not being a lawyer, is the most logical scenario/conclusion; they, by law, are not doing anything wrong. I don't get any of this McDonald's conversation or comparison that relies on some negligence, which is clearly a stretch for the Cal game scenario: you order a cup of coffee with the expectation that it will be safe to do so...what "assumptions" am I making in terms of going to a Cal game in September?
Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death. The Trump rally in Oklahoma, (masks optional, no social distancing concerns) is much more tied to deaths than anything that could happen at CMS. Again, did anyone seek damages?

---

It might help if you checked out the internet. You can easily find tons of information about all types of lawsuits filed by a lot of parties against other parties related to COVID (including claims for alleged harm because the plaintiffs were harmed by the defendants failure to protect he plaintiffs from the direct or indirect impact of COVID. Many websites provide that info to name a few: MDLaw; law.com; Nolo law, JDsupra.

There is also information about legislation passed by a number of states to provide protections to certain classes of defendants on certain conditions (legislation that was deemed necessary because the high volume of such lawsuits.)

Finally there is a lot of information about other potential defendants who have taken different steps to protect themselves from such litigation.

---

I was asking others to support their points, I wasn't trying to prove a point.
I imagine those, and other cases aren't really in context unless they happened within the last week or two, because of the vaccine. Anyone who goes to CMS has the choice and the access to get vaccinated...that obviously wasn't true 7 months ago....

---

In coming to your conclusion what is or is not relevant, just remember your own prefatory admission, "Not being a lawyer..."

---

The point of which was to be challenged, or corrected on some fundamental point. Not any different than trusting the science...

---

I will give this one last attempt to get through to you.
in you post of 6-1-21 you stated: "Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death."
I referred you to a number of sites that reported cases where the plaintiffs sued the defendants for failing to keep them or their loved ones from the risk of harm, including death,

In your post of 6-3-2021 you reply and discount all the cases that were mentioned in those sites because you "imagine those, and other cases aren't really in context within the last week or two, because of the vaccine".

So once your original challenge failed miserably and a number of cases were found, you change your strategy and now want to focus only on cases that have been filed after the vaccines have been available. You want to ignore all those cases because they "aren't really in context"

The point of my reference to your admission that you are not a lawyer is two-fold.

First, if you were an trained and experienced attorney you would know that those cases take a long time to be litigated and come to resolution. Then they take time to be published in reports so that other lawyers can find them.

Second, since you are not a trained and experienced attorney, you are not in a position to decide when and which cases are not relevant. You can't just challenge a whole army of cases by saying that they are not relevant because they too old or occurred when time were different. you must prepare legal briefs pointing out how each of the cases is not relevant. it is up to the judge to decide what cases are or are not relevant.

---

I have done nothing than raise talking points, and you increase your hostility. Judges rule in very different ways, sometimes in ways lawyers don't understand, so of course it's up to a Judge.
Okay, I am asking, just to make sure I am getting through to you: do you, or any lawyers here, believe that, given a vaccination available to everyone, and the free choice associated with going to the game itself, believe that Cal still risks legal action by having a full house limit this fall? This is where the whole discussion started with me.
I don't dismiss ANYTHING that has gone before, even cases that were pre-pandemic that you or anyone else might argue are relevant to potential legal action now.
My "not being a lawyer" qualifier was me saying I was open to any and all discussions that shot down the notion that Cal has very little to fear to in opening up to full attendance capacity, which obviously a lot of cities and universities have in fact already decided. I never was looking to create any hostile reaction, or confrontation, so if that wasn't clear, I am deeply sorry for giving the impression any other way.

mbBear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

mbBear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

mbBear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

mbBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Typical Cal fans. Enter at your own risk. You feel uncomfortable don't come. I will be there. Just as you sell homes as is with disclosures, you should be able to sell tickets with at your own risk entrance and disclosures.

---

There is no "typical" about this-don't try to make this something that it isn't. A few people expressed legal concerns, and, even when I asked a couple of times, no one of a legal background gave us anything close to examples of this liability.
No one's opinion here will affect the decision that is made, one that is going to be exactly as you described anyway.

---

Once the State and City of Berkeley permit full capacity, the issue of liability re: the virus disappears. It is incumbent upon every individual to make an informed decision regarding whether they want to attend the games. If they choose to attend, they assume all the risk re: COVID.

As an aside, the Giants will begin permitting full capacity at Oracle Park in late June.

---

This to me, not being a lawyer, is the most logical scenario/conclusion; they, by law, are not doing anything wrong. I don't get any of this McDonald's conversation or comparison that relies on some negligence, which is clearly a stretch for the Cal game scenario: you order a cup of coffee with the expectation that it will be safe to do so...what "assumptions" am I making in terms of going to a Cal game in September?
Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death. The Trump rally in Oklahoma, (masks optional, no social distancing concerns) is much more tied to deaths than anything that could happen at CMS. Again, did anyone seek damages?

---

It might help if you checked out the internet. You can easily find tons of information about all types of lawsuits filed by a lot of parties against other parties related to COVID (including claims for alleged harm because the plaintiffs were harmed by the defendants failure to protect he plaintiffs from the direct or indirect impact of COVID. Many websites provide that info to name a few: MDLaw; law.com; Nolo law, JDsupra.

There is also information about legislation passed by a number of states to provide protections to certain classes of defendants on certain conditions (legislation that was deemed necessary because the high volume of such lawsuits.)

Finally there is a lot of information about other potential defendants who have taken different steps to protect themselves from such litigation.

---

I was asking others to support their points, I wasn't trying to prove a point.
I imagine those, and other cases aren't really in context unless they happened within the last week or two, because of the vaccine. Anyone who goes to CMS has the choice and the access to get vaccinated...that obviously wasn't true 7 months ago....

---

In coming to your conclusion what is or is not relevant, just remember your own prefatory admission, "Not being a lawyer..."

---

The point of which was to be challenged, or corrected on some fundamental point. Not any different than trusting the science...

---

I will give this one last attempt to get through to you.
in you post of 6-1-21 you stated: "Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death."
I referred you to a number of sites that reported cases where the plaintiffs sued the defendants for failing to keep them or their loved ones from the risk of harm, including death,

In your post of 6-3-2021 you reply and discount all the cases that were mentioned in those sites because you "imagine those, and other cases aren't really in context within the last week or two, because of the vaccine".

So once your original challenge failed miserably and a number of cases were found, you change your strategy and now want to focus only on cases that have been filed after the vaccines have been available. You want to ignore all those cases because they "aren't really in context"

The point of my reference to your admission that you are not a lawyer is two-fold.

First, if you were an trained and experienced attorney you would know that those cases take a long time to be litigated and come to resolution. Then they take time to be published in reports so that other lawyers can find them.

Second, since you are not a trained and experienced attorney, you are not in a position to decide when and which cases are not relevant. You can't just challenge a whole army of cases by saying that they are not relevant because they too old or occurred when time were different. you must prepare legal briefs pointing out how each of the cases is not relevant. it is up to the judge to decide what cases are or are not relevant.

---

I have done nothing than raise talking points, and you increase your hostility. Judges rule in very different ways, sometimes in ways lawyers don't understand, so of course it's up to a Judge.
Okay, I am asking, just to make sure I am getting through to you: do you, or any lawyers here, believe that, given a vaccination available to everyone, and the free choice associated with going to the game itself, believe that Cal still risks legal action by having a full house limit this fall? This is where the whole discussion started with me.
I don't dismiss ANYTHING that has gone before, even cases that were pre-pandemic that you or anyone else might argue are relevant to potential legal action now.
My "not being a lawyer" qualifier was me saying I was open to any and all discussions that shot down the notion that Cal has very little to fear to in opening up to full attendance capacity, which obviously a lot of cities and universities have in fact already decided. I never was looking to create any hostile reaction, or confrontation, so if that wasn't clear, I am deeply sorry for giving the impression any other way.

---

Cal is putting on Cal Football games at which many members of the public are expected to attend.
Cal has a duty to provide a reasonably safe environment for those fans. If it fails to do so, it can be held liable.

If Cal understands (or has enough information that it should reasonably understand) that a material number of unvaccinated fans are expected to attend Cal games in Memorial Stadium) and that this might pose a material danger to those fans, it has a duty to take reasonable steps to avoid that harm to those in attendance.

I said this much In a series of posts it's back in and around 5-24-21.
My recommendation was that Cal do what is done at other other private and public event such as requiring proof of vaccination (or possibly temperature checks) for incoming fans.

Those precautions are customary and reasonable and not invasive. The vaccine/temperature checks can be easily performed in connection with the weapons check s as you enter.

If Cal does nothing (as you suggest) Cal could face a lawsuit for failing to provide a reasonably safe place of paid entertainment.

Things may change if the US reaches a level of vaccination in its public to reach herd immunity at a level where all travel restrictions are lifted and no further COVID spikes are reasonably foreseen.

But if some public restrictions are still in place for large public gatherings in California. It would be prudent for Cal to impose a vaccination/temperature test for fans entering Memorial.

Is this clear enough for you.
(You have sensed a level of frustration in my replies to you. That frustration arises from having a discussion/argument regarding The Law with individuals who are not trained in Law have no experience before courts or juries. I enjoy a spirited legal discussion with other lawyers. But in those discussions we are all speaking the same language. Having a spirited legal discussion with a non-lawyer is like a ballgame where one side is playing rugby and the other is playing American football.

BearForce2 said:

---

mbBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Typical Cal fans. Enter at your own risk. You feel uncomfortable don't come. I will be there. Just as you sell homes as is with disclosures, you should be able to sell tickets with at your own risk entrance and disclosures.

---

There is no "typical" about this-don't try to make this something that it isn't. A few people expressed legal concerns, and, even when I asked a couple of times, no one of a legal background gave us anything close to examples of this liability.
No one's opinion here will affect the decision that is made, one that is going to be exactly as you described anyway.

---

Once the State and City of Berkeley permit full capacity, the issue of liability re: the virus disappears. It is incumbent upon every individual to make an informed decision regarding whether they want to attend the games. If they choose to attend, they assume all the risk re: COVID.

As an aside, the Giants will begin permitting full capacity at Oracle Park in late June.

---

This to me, not being a lawyer, is the most logical scenario/conclusion; they, by law, are not doing anything wrong. I don't get any of this McDonald's conversation or comparison that relies on some negligence, which is clearly a stretch for the Cal game scenario: you order a cup of coffee with the expectation that it will be safe to do so...what "assumptions" am I making in terms of going to a Cal game in September?
Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death. The Trump rally in Oklahoma, (masks optional, no social distancing concerns) is much more tied to deaths than anything that could happen at CMS. Again, did anyone seek damages?

---

The BLM protests, riots, and lootings across multiple cities last year were also unsafe and caused major damage. But the media never mentions it, I wonder why?

---

Stop the steal. Cal has won every Rose Bowl for the last 100 years!

Bobodeluxe said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

mbBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Typical Cal fans. Enter at your own risk. You feel uncomfortable don't come. I will be there. Just as you sell homes as is with disclosures, you should be able to sell tickets with at your own risk entrance and disclosures.

---

There is no "typical" about this-don't try to make this something that it isn't. A few people expressed legal concerns, and, even when I asked a couple of times, no one of a legal background gave us anything close to examples of this liability.
No one's opinion here will affect the decision that is made, one that is going to be exactly as you described anyway.

---

Once the State and City of Berkeley permit full capacity, the issue of liability re: the virus disappears. It is incumbent upon every individual to make an informed decision regarding whether they want to attend the games. If they choose to attend, they assume all the risk re: COVID.

As an aside, the Giants will begin permitting full capacity at Oracle Park in late June.

---

This to me, not being a lawyer, is the most logical scenario/conclusion; they, by law, are not doing anything wrong. I don't get any of this McDonald's conversation or comparison that relies on some negligence, which is clearly a stretch for the Cal game scenario: you order a cup of coffee with the expectation that it will be safe to do so...what "assumptions" am I making in terms of going to a Cal game in September?
Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death. The Trump rally in Oklahoma, (masks optional, no social distancing concerns) is much more tied to deaths than anything that could happen at CMS. Again, did anyone seek damages?

---

The BLM protests, riots, and lootings across multiple cities last year were also unsafe and caused major damage. But the media never mentions it, I wonder why?

---

Stop the steal. Cal has won every Rose Bowl for the last 100 years!

---

That made me laugh out loud. Finally, A Big Lie that even Trumpers would find too outrageous to believe!!

Bobodeluxe said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

mbBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Typical Cal fans. Enter at your own risk. You feel uncomfortable don't come. I will be there. Just as you sell homes as is with disclosures, you should be able to sell tickets with at your own risk entrance and disclosures.

---

There is no "typical" about this-don't try to make this something that it isn't. A few people expressed legal concerns, and, even when I asked a couple of times, no one of a legal background gave us anything close to examples of this liability.
No one's opinion here will affect the decision that is made, one that is going to be exactly as you described anyway.

---

Once the State and City of Berkeley permit full capacity, the issue of liability re: the virus disappears. It is incumbent upon every individual to make an informed decision regarding whether they want to attend the games. If they choose to attend, they assume all the risk re: COVID.

As an aside, the Giants will begin permitting full capacity at Oracle Park in late June.

---

This to me, not being a lawyer, is the most logical scenario/conclusion; they, by law, are not doing anything wrong. I don't get any of this McDonald's conversation or comparison that relies on some negligence, which is clearly a stretch for the Cal game scenario: you order a cup of coffee with the expectation that it will be safe to do so...what "assumptions" am I making in terms of going to a Cal game in September?
Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death. The Trump rally in Oklahoma, (masks optional, no social distancing concerns) is much more tied to deaths than anything that could happen at CMS. Again, did anyone seek damages?

---

The BLM protests, riots, and lootings across multiple cities last year were also unsafe and caused major damage. But the media never mentions it, I wonder why?

---

Stop the steal. Cal has won every Rose Bowl for the last 100 years!

---

They stole it from me.

BearForce2 said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

mbBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

mbBear said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Typical Cal fans. Enter at your own risk. You feel uncomfortable don't come. I will be there. Just as you sell homes as is with disclosures, you should be able to sell tickets with at your own risk entrance and disclosures.

---

There is no "typical" about this-don't try to make this something that it isn't. A few people expressed legal concerns, and, even when I asked a couple of times, no one of a legal background gave us anything close to examples of this liability.
No one's opinion here will affect the decision that is made, one that is going to be exactly as you described anyway.

---

Once the State and City of Berkeley permit full capacity, the issue of liability re: the virus disappears. It is incumbent upon every individual to make an informed decision regarding whether they want to attend the games. If they choose to attend, they assume all the risk re: COVID.

As an aside, the Giants will begin permitting full capacity at Oracle Park in late June.

---

This to me, not being a lawyer, is the most logical scenario/conclusion; they, by law, are not doing anything wrong. I don't get any of this McDonald's conversation or comparison that relies on some negligence, which is clearly a stretch for the Cal game scenario: you order a cup of coffee with the expectation that it will be safe to do so...what "assumptions" am I making in terms of going to a Cal game in September?
Almost 600k people have died from Covid...still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death. The Trump rally in Oklahoma, (masks optional, no social distancing concerns) is much more tied to deaths than anything that could happen at CMS. Again, did anyone seek damages?

---

The BLM protests, riots, and lootings across multiple cities last year were also unsafe and caused major damage. But the media never mentions it, I wonder why?

---

Stop the steal. Cal has won every Rose Bowl for the last 100 years!

---

They stole it from me.

---

mbBear,

In order to sue in a case like the one being discussed in this thread, the plaintiff/fan MUST allege (and, ultimately, prove) negligence/recklessness on the part of the university. Without proving negligence/recklessness, no such lawsuit will stand. (If you look at any cases that may have been filed in the country thus far, they will ALL allege negligence/recklessness on the part of the entity they are suing.)

So, in September, the university must follow the local, state, federal guidelines pertaining to COVID19 - something they have certainly been doing all along. Following the guidelines/requirements set forth by the city, state and federal government would constitute/fulfill the reasonable measures/behavior required of the university by law. Indeed, the university may even go beyond the guidelines by, say, providing masks to those who want them at the entrance, having warnings re: Covid posted, liability waivers on tickets, having hand sanitizer stations, etc. This will only further protect the university.

As others have noted, that which is required by the local, state and federal government may be far less stringent by September. But, as 71Bear stated in this thread, "Once the State and City of Berkeley permit full capacity, the issue of liability re: the virus disappears. It is incumbent upon every individual to make an informed decision regarding whether they want to attend the games. If they choose to attend, they assume all the risk re: COVID."

In order to prevail in a law suit against the university, the plaintiff must not only prove that (1) the University was negligent in some manner, but also that (2) they contracted COVID AT the game (as opposed to anywhere else), which I cannot imagine being possible, AND that (3) it was the University's act of negligence/failure that caused them to contract COVID.

Proving #3 would also be extremely difficult. For instance, let's pretend that, in September, the state guidelines require public places, such as sports venues, to have hand sanitizer stations in all of the bathrooms, and throughout the stadium. And, for the sake of the hypothetical, let's say that there weren't hand sanitizer stations in all of the bathrooms at the stadium. Thus, this "failure" to have hand sanitizer in the bathrooms (as required by the state) is the "negligence" claimed by the plaintiff. Well, the plaintiff would have to prove that they contracted COVID due to/as a result of the fact that there was not a hand sanitizer station in the bathroom they used during the game. (i.e. had there been a hand sanitizer station in the bathroom, they would not have contracted COVID.) So, they'd have to prove that it was the university's negligence that caused the harm to the plaintiff/fan.

You decide how easy it would be for someone to prevail in a lawsuit that alleges that someone contracted COVID19 at a football game due to the negligence of the university.

As GTA has noted, people sue others for all kinds of crazy reasons. And, the results of some lawsuits can be considered pretty ridiculous to many people. However, if the university continues to follow the local, state and federal guidelines for how to deal with COVID (i.e. is not negligent, aka: takes reasonable steps to protect the public), I do not believe that this should end up being an issue for the university.

SoCalie said:

---

mbBear,

In order to sue in a case like the one being discussed in this thread, the plaintiff/fan MUST allege (and, ultimately, prove) negligence/recklessness on the part of the university. Without proving negligence/recklessness, no such lawsuit will stand. (If you look at any cases that may have been filed in the country thus far, they will ALL allege negligence/recklessness on the part of the entity they are suing.)

So, in September, the university must follow the local, state, federal guidelines pertaining to COVID19 - something they have certainly been doing all along. Following the guidelines/requirements set forth by the city, state and federal government would constitute/fulfill the reasonable measures/behavior required of the university by law. Indeed, the university may even go beyond the guidelines by, say, providing masks to those who want them at the entrance, having warnings re: Covid posted, liability waivers on tickets, having hand sanitizer stations, etc. This will only further protect the university.

As others have noted, that which is required by the local, state and federal government may be far less stringent by September. But, as 71Bear stated in this thread, "Once the State and City of Berkeley permit full capacity, the issue of liability re: the virus disappears. It is incumbent upon every individual to make an informed decision regarding whether they want to attend the games. If they choose to attend, they assume all the risk re: COVID."

In order to prevail in a law suit against the university, the plaintiff must not only prove that (1) the University was negligent in some manner, but also that (2) they contracted COVID AT the game (as opposed to anywhere else), which I cannot imagine being possible, AND that (3) it was the University's act of negligence/failure that caused them to contract COVID.

Proving #3 would also be extremely difficult. For instance, let's pretend that, in September, the state guidelines require public places, such as sports venues, to have hand sanitizer stations in all of the bathrooms, and throughout the stadium. And, for the sake of the hypothetical, let's say that there weren't hand sanitizer stations in all of the bathrooms at the stadium. Thus, this "failure" to have hand sanitizer in the bathrooms (as required by the state) is the "negligence" claimed by the plaintiff. Well, the plaintiff would have to prove that they contracted COVID due to/as a result of the fact that there was not a hand sanitizer station in the bathroom they used during the game. (i.e. had there been a hand sanitizer station in the bathroom, they would not have contracted COVID.) So, they'd have to prove that it was the university's negligence that caused the harm to the plaintiff/fan.

You decide how easy it would be for someone to prevail in a lawsuit that alleges that someone contracted COVID19 at a football game due to the negligence of the university.

As GTA has noted, people sue others for all kinds of crazy reasons. And, the results of some lawsuits can be considered pretty ridiculous to many people. However, if the university continues to follow the local, state and federal guidelines for how to deal with COVID (i.e. is not negligent, aka: takes reasonable steps to protect the public), I do not believe that this should end up being an issue for the university.

---

Thanks for the straightforward and complete post!

As for lawsuits alleging liability for a COVID death, I can say that my firm is handling such a wrongful death case right now. The plaintiff is suing the late spouse's employer for the spouse's COVID death, and is alleging the death was caused by "serious and willful misconduct" of the employer to get around the workers comp exclusive remedy.

MSaviolives said:

---

As for lawsuits alleging liability for a COVID death, I can say that my firm is handling such a wrongful death case right now. The plaintiff is suing the late spouse's employer for the spouse's COVID death, and is alleging the death was caused by "serious and willful misconduct" of the employer to get around the workers comp exclusive remedy.

---

Alleging does not equate to proving.

Cal_79 said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

As for lawsuits alleging liability for a COVID death, I can say that my firm is handling such a wrongful death case right now. The plaintiff is suing the late spouse's employer for the spouse's COVID death, and is alleging the death was caused by "serious and willful misconduct" of the employer to get around the workers comp exclusive remedy.

---

Alleging does not equate to proving.

---

Absolutely. In a country where people file lawsuits as frequently as they change their clothes, I would be greatly surprised to read that anything less than hundreds, if not thousands, of cases have been filed. What a waste of time and effort.

Heck, it reminds me of a civil trial on which I served as a juror. The plaintiffs case was a ridiculous allegation v. the defendant. After a two day trial, we spent five minutes selecting a foreperson and five minutes deliberating the case. To this day, I do not understand why the legal system permitted a case as flimsy as that one to progress to a jury. The plaintiff asked for $200K and received nothing.

71Bear said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

As for lawsuits alleging liability for a COVID death, I can say that my firm is handling such a wrongful death case right now. The plaintiff is suing the late spouse's employer for the spouse's COVID death, and is alleging the death was caused by "serious and willful misconduct" of the employer to get around the workers comp exclusive remedy.

---

Alleging does not equate to proving.

---

Absolutely. In a country where people file lawsuits as frequently as they change their clothes, I would be greatly surprised to read that anything less than hundreds, if not thousands, of cases have been filed. What a waste of time and effort.

Heck, it reminds me of a civil trial on which I served as a juror. The plaintiffs case was a ridiculous allegation v. the defendant. After a two day trial, we spent five minutes selecting a foreperson and five minutes deliberating the case. To this day, I do not understand why the legal system permitted a case as flimsy as that one to progress to a jury. The plaintiff asked for $200K and received nothing.

---

What grinds my gears isn't just that people can bring flimsy lawsuits, it's that the state can compel you to serve on a civil jury. I understand and accept the 6th amendment for criminal trials but I can't get behind the 7th amendment (juries for federal civil suits) at all. Fortunately, SCOTUS doesn't impose the 7th amendment on states but obviously that hasn't prevented states from imposing it on their own.

I've never served on a jury but my blood would boil if I have to show up to jury duty for some stupid civil claim.

Cal_79 said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

As for lawsuits alleging liability for a COVID death, I can say that my firm is handling such a wrongful death case right now. The plaintiff is suing the late spouse's employer for the spouse's COVID death, and is alleging the death was caused by "serious and willful misconduct" of the employer to get around the workers comp exclusive remedy.

---

Alleging does not equate to proving.

---

Well duh. I was only responding to this: "still looking for the legal posts here to cite a case where someone has been sued for causing the death." We are dealing with such a case.

MSaviolives said:

---

As for lawsuits alleging liability for a COVID death, I can say that my firm is handling such a wrongful death case right now. The plaintiff is suing the late spouse's employer for the spouse's COVID death, and is alleging the death was caused by "serious and willful misconduct" of the employer to get around the workers comp exclusive remedy.

---

Interesting. Did this happen prior to vaccines being available, and does that matter in your opinion?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

As for lawsuits alleging liability for a COVID death, I can say that my firm is handling such a wrongful death case right now. The plaintiff is suing the late spouse's employer for the spouse's COVID death, and is alleging the death was caused by "serious and willful misconduct" of the employer to get around the workers comp exclusive remedy.

---

Alleging does not equate to proving.

---

Absolutely. In a country where people file lawsuits as frequently as they change their clothes, I would be greatly surprised to read that anything less than hundreds, if not thousands, of cases have been filed. What a waste of time and effort.

Heck, it reminds me of a civil trial on which I served as a juror. The plaintiffs case was a ridiculous allegation v. the defendant. After a two day trial, we spent five minutes selecting a foreperson and five minutes deliberating the case. To this day, I do not understand why the legal system permitted a case as flimsy as that one to progress to a jury. The plaintiff asked for $200K and received nothing.

---

What grinds my gears isn't just that people can bring flimsy lawsuits, it's that the state can compel you to serve on a civil jury. I understand and accept the 6th amendment for criminal trials but I can't get behind the 7th amendment (juries for federal civil suits) at all. Fortunately, SCOTUS doesn't impose the 7th amendment on states but obviously that hasn't prevented states from imposing it on their own.

I've never served on a jury but my blood would boil if I have to show up to jury duty for some stupid civil claim.

---

Alleging does not equal proving. But if the plaintiff gets past defendant's summary judgement motion, the plaintiff has taken a giant step forward toward a favorable settlement.

Second, yes there are tons of flimsy stupid claims. But the American judicial system allows every wronged person their day in court. Most judges are willing to allow 9 flimsy complaints to go forward in order to avoid cutting off one legitimate complaint

I think your question about the availability of the vaccine is very interesting. The whole COVID pandemic thing is such a unique situation. And, the fact that there is a vaccine available makes a negligence suit (like the one being discussed here) even more interesting. It is something that would certainly come into play if the lawsuit were to survive summary judgment and head towards trial.

For example, it would be used to show the jury that the plaintiff (not the university) is responsible for contracting COVID. i.e. the defense would present information such as: the plaintiff knew of the risk of COVID, and what he/she could have done to decrease that risk, yet...they chose not to wear a mask to the game, chose to sit in the middle of the crowd (vs. in an uncrowded area), chose not to get vaccinated, even though getting vaccinated was possible with little effort and at no cost to the plaintiff, etc., etc. The jury would take all that information into account when determining how much responsibility (for contracting COVID) should be attributed to the plaintiff vs the university.

---

All of that being said, as long as the university follows the local, state and federal guidelines regarding COVID (which they have consistently done thus far, and I expect that continue...and they may even adopt a few more additional measures that are easy to implement, for further protection), I do not believe law suits against the university (as discussed in this thread) would survive summary judgment. (As a young associate, this is the bulk of work I did when defending against negligence claims.)

Again, the plaintiff/fan would, ultimately, have to be able to prove that (1) the university was negligent/reckless (or worse, as described in MSaviolives' post above) by failing to take reasonable steps to protect the public - something that the university would fulfill by following local, state and federal guidelines, (2) that the fan contracted COVID AT the game, and (3) that the failure/negligence of the university was what caused the plaintiff/fan to contract COVID.

I see no reason why the university would change course and all of the sudden stop following the guidelines set forth by the City of Berkeley, Alameda County, State of CA and federal government. So, no negligence.

I don't see how it would be possible to prove #2 above.

And, IF, for some crazy reason, the plaintiff/fan IS able to prove #2 above, it would be EXTREMELY difficult, if not impossible to prove #3 as well.

Side Note:
Frankly, I found it to be pretty darn easy to prevail on Motions for Summary Judgment in negligence cases - NOT because I am some special person...but, because I think that the standard plaintiffs have to meet are pretty high. (Unless the negligence was clear, and causation is easy to prove. This is NOT the case here.) In fact, the main reason I became totally disillusioned with being an attorney - and chose to change paths in life - is because I won a motion for summary judgment in a horrible wrongful death case that, in my opinion...and, in terms of my personal sense of morality and ethics/what is right and wrong - I should have lost. It was the most horrible argument I ever made, and it was fabulously successful...and, I cried the entire way home from court. There was a little celebration the next day at work with cake and balloons because it was a big case....meanwhile, I told my boss that I just could not continue as an attorney.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

As for lawsuits alleging liability for a COVID death, I can say that my firm is handling such a wrongful death case right now. The plaintiff is suing the late spouse's employer for the spouse's COVID death, and is alleging the death was caused by "serious and willful misconduct" of the employer to get around the workers comp exclusive remedy.

---

Alleging does not equate to proving.

---

Absolutely. In a country where people file lawsuits as frequently as they change their clothes, I would be greatly surprised to read that anything less than hundreds, if not thousands, of cases have been filed. What a waste of time and effort.

Heck, it reminds me of a civil trial on which I served as a juror. The plaintiffs case was a ridiculous allegation v. the defendant. After a two day trial, we spent five minutes selecting a foreperson and five minutes deliberating the case. To this day, I do not understand why the legal system permitted a case as flimsy as that one to progress to a jury. The plaintiff asked for $200K and received nothing.

---

What grinds my gears isn't just that people can bring flimsy lawsuits, it's that the state can compel you to serve on a civil jury. I understand and accept the 6th amendment for criminal trials but I can't get behind the 7th amendment (juries for federal civil suits) at all. Fortunately, SCOTUS doesn't impose the 7th amendment on states but obviously that hasn't prevented states from imposing it on their own.

I've never served on a jury but my blood would boil if I have to show up to jury duty for some stupid civil claim.

---

Alleging does not equal proving. But if the plaintiff gets past defendant's summary judgement motion, the plaintiff has taken a giant step forward toward a favorable settlement.

Second, yes there are tons of flimsy stupid claims. But the American judicial system allows every wronged person their day in court. Most judges are willing to allow 9 flimsy complaints to go forward in order to avoid cutting off one legitimate complaint

---

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have access to recourse through a legal process, just that I shouldn't be forced to sit for a civil trial as a juror. The American judicial system doesn't allow every wronged person their day in court, by the way, it's very much dependent on access to counsel as well as a number of other factors. None of that has anything to do with my complaint though which is purely about forcing people to serve on civil juries.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

As for lawsuits alleging liability for a COVID death, I can say that my firm is handling such a wrongful death case right now. The plaintiff is suing the late spouse's employer for the spouse's COVID death, and is alleging the death was caused by "serious and willful misconduct" of the employer to get around the workers comp exclusive remedy.

---

Alleging does not equate to proving.

---

Absolutely. In a country where people file lawsuits as frequently as they change their clothes, I would be greatly surprised to read that anything less than hundreds, if not thousands, of cases have been filed. What a waste of time and effort.

Heck, it reminds me of a civil trial on which I served as a juror. The plaintiffs case was a ridiculous allegation v. the defendant. After a two day trial, we spent five minutes selecting a foreperson and five minutes deliberating the case. To this day, I do not understand why the legal system permitted a case as flimsy as that one to progress to a jury. The plaintiff asked for $200K and received nothing.

---

What grinds my gears isn't just that people can bring flimsy lawsuits, it's that the state can compel you to serve on a civil jury. I understand and accept the 6th amendment for criminal trials but I can't get behind the 7th amendment (juries for federal civil suits) at all. Fortunately, SCOTUS doesn't impose the 7th amendment on states but obviously that hasn't prevented states from imposing it on their own.

I've never served on a jury but my blood would boil if I have to show up to jury duty for some stupid civil claim.

---

Alleging does not equal proving. But if the plaintiff gets past defendant's summary judgement motion, the plaintiff has taken a giant step forward toward a favorable settlement.

Second, yes there are tons of flimsy stupid claims. But the American judicial system allows every wronged person their day in court. Most judges are willing to allow 9 flimsy complaints to go forward in order to avoid cutting off one legitimate complaint

---

The problem is the liability laws in this country. I would simply apply a "personal responsibility standard" and only permit cases to move forward if the plaintiff meets the standard. The personal responsibility standard could easily be developed by legislation (of course, the legal community would lobby it to death) so that ain't gonna happen.....

71Bear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

As for lawsuits alleging liability for a COVID death, I can say that my firm is handling such a wrongful death case right now. The plaintiff is suing the late spouse's employer for the spouse's COVID death, and is alleging the death was caused by "serious and willful misconduct" of the employer to get around the workers comp exclusive remedy.

---

Alleging does not equate to proving.

---

Absolutely. In a country where people file lawsuits as frequently as they change their clothes, I would be greatly surprised to read that anything less than hundreds, if not thousands, of cases have been filed. What a waste of time and effort.

Heck, it reminds me of a civil trial on which I served as a juror. The plaintiffs case was a ridiculous allegation v. the defendant. After a two day trial, we spent five minutes selecting a foreperson and five minutes deliberating the case. To this day, I do not understand why the legal system permitted a case as flimsy as that one to progress to a jury. The plaintiff asked for $200K and received nothing.

---

What grinds my gears isn't just that people can bring flimsy lawsuits, it's that the state can compel you to serve on a civil jury. I understand and accept the 6th amendment for criminal trials but I can't get behind the 7th amendment (juries for federal civil suits) at all. Fortunately, SCOTUS doesn't impose the 7th amendment on states but obviously that hasn't prevented states from imposing it on their own.

I've never served on a jury but my blood would boil if I have to show up to jury duty for some stupid civil claim.

---

Alleging does not equal proving. But if the plaintiff gets past defendant's summary judgement motion, the plaintiff has taken a giant step forward toward a favorable settlement.

Second, yes there are tons of flimsy stupid claims. But the American judicial system allows every wronged person their day in court. Most judges are willing to allow 9 flimsy complaints to go forward in order to avoid cutting off one legitimate complaint

---

The problem is the liability laws in this country. I would simply apply a "personal responsibility standard" and only permit cases to move forward if the plaintiff meets the standard. The personal responsibility standard could easily be developed by legislation (of course, the legal community would lobby it to death) so that ain't gonna happen.....

---

I have worked on drafting and revising legislation on different state bar and private lobbying groups.
You would be surprised how difficult it is to draft simple legislation even when all parties involved are " on the same side" of the issue. It gets even worse when the parties involved are on "different sides" of the issue.

I would take with a grain of salt your statement that "a personal responsibility standard could be easily developed".

Unit2Sucks said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

As for lawsuits alleging liability for a COVID death, I can say that my firm is handling such a wrongful death case right now. The plaintiff is suing the late spouse's employer for the spouse's COVID death, and is alleging the death was caused by "serious and willful misconduct" of the employer to get around the workers comp exclusive remedy.

---

Alleging does not equate to proving.

---

Absolutely. In a country where people file lawsuits as frequently as they change their clothes, I would be greatly surprised to read that anything less than hundreds, if not thousands, of cases have been filed. What a waste of time and effort.

Heck, it reminds me of a civil trial on which I served as a juror. The plaintiffs case was a ridiculous allegation v. the defendant. After a two day trial, we spent five minutes selecting a foreperson and five minutes deliberating the case. To this day, I do not understand why the legal system permitted a case as flimsy as that one to progress to a jury. The plaintiff asked for $200K and received nothing.

---

What grinds my gears isn't just that people can bring flimsy lawsuits, it's that the state can compel you to serve on a civil jury. I understand and accept the 6th amendment for criminal trials but I can't get behind the 7th amendment (juries for federal civil suits) at all. Fortunately, SCOTUS doesn't impose the 7th amendment on states but obviously that hasn't prevented states from imposing it on their own.

I've never served on a jury but my blood would boil if I have to show up to jury duty for some stupid civil claim.

---

Alleging does not equal proving. But if the plaintiff gets past defendant's summary judgement motion, the plaintiff has taken a giant step forward toward a favorable settlement.

Second, yes there are tons of flimsy stupid claims. But the American judicial system allows every wronged person their day in court. Most judges are willing to allow 9 flimsy complaints to go forward in order to avoid cutting off one legitimate complaint

---

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have access to recourse through a legal process, just that I shouldn't be forced to sit for a civil trial as a juror. The American judicial system doesn't allow every wronged person their day in court, by the way, it's very much dependent on access to counsel as well as a number of other factors. None of that has anything to do with my complaint though which is purely about forcing people to serve on civil juries.

---

You are not alone in your dislike for serving on a jury
Unfortunately our system of law relies on juries and compulsory jury duty is the only fair way to get a jury made up of a good cross section of the public.

The jury system has proven a more fair and rational means of coming to a legal decision than other systems which rely on appointed or elected judges, administrators, arbitrators where the results can be arbitrary, capricious, mean, venal, self serving etc.

There is an old joke/story from either California or Nevada where claim jumping was rife and judges were easily bribed to come to a favorable decision. One particular judge had a reputation for being the most honest judge in the area. At a hearing one day, he began by saying. I want everyone to know that the Plaintiff has given me $200 to rule in his favor. And the Defendant has given me $300 to rule in his favor. Just to show everyone that I am a just and fair judge, I am going to give $100 back to the Defendant and I will issue my ruling based upon the evidence.

OK OK. Maybe it's not such a good joke. But it proves my point. Even the good judges are not always so good.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

As for lawsuits alleging liability for a COVID death, I can say that my firm is handling such a wrongful death case right now. The plaintiff is suing the late spouse's employer for the spouse's COVID death, and is alleging the death was caused by "serious and willful misconduct" of the employer to get around the workers comp exclusive remedy.

---

Alleging does not equate to proving.

---

Absolutely. In a country where people file lawsuits as frequently as they change their clothes, I would be greatly surprised to read that anything less than hundreds, if not thousands, of cases have been filed. What a waste of time and effort.

Heck, it reminds me of a civil trial on which I served as a juror. The plaintiffs case was a ridiculous allegation v. the defendant. After a two day trial, we spent five minutes selecting a foreperson and five minutes deliberating the case. To this day, I do not understand why the legal system permitted a case as flimsy as that one to progress to a jury. The plaintiff asked for $200K and received nothing.

---

What grinds my gears isn't just that people can bring flimsy lawsuits, it's that the state can compel you to serve on a civil jury. I understand and accept the 6th amendment for criminal trials but I can't get behind the 7th amendment (juries for federal civil suits) at all. Fortunately, SCOTUS doesn't impose the 7th amendment on states but obviously that hasn't prevented states from imposing it on their own.

I've never served on a jury but my blood would boil if I have to show up to jury duty for some stupid civil claim.

---

Alleging does not equal proving. But if the plaintiff gets past defendant's summary judgement motion, the plaintiff has taken a giant step forward toward a favorable settlement.

Second, yes there are tons of flimsy stupid claims. But the American judicial system allows every wronged person their day in court. Most judges are willing to allow 9 flimsy complaints to go forward in order to avoid cutting off one legitimate complaint

---

I'm not saying that people shouldn't have access to recourse through a legal process, just that I shouldn't be forced to sit for a civil trial as a juror. The American judicial system doesn't allow every wronged person their day in court, by the way, it's very much dependent on access to counsel as well as a number of other factors. None of that has anything to do with my complaint though which is purely about forcing people to serve on civil juries.

---

You are not alone in your dislike for serving on a jury
Unfortunately our system of law relies on juries and compulsory jury duty is the only fair way to get a jury made up of a good cross section of the public.

The jury system has proven a more fair and rational means of coming to a legal decision than other systems which rely on appointed or elected judges, administrators, arbitrators where the results can be arbitrary, capricious, mean, venal, self serving etc.

There is an old joke/story from either California or Nevada where claim jumping was rife and judges were easily bribed to come to a favorable decision. One particular judge had a reputation for being the most honest judge in the area. At a hearing one day, he began by saying. I want everyone to know that the Plaintiff has given me $200 to rule in his favor. And the Defendant has given me $300 to rule in his favor. Just to show everyone that I am a just and fair judge, I am going to give $100 back to the Defendant and I will issue my ruling based upon the evidence.

OK OK. Maybe it's not such a good joke. But it proves my point. Even the good judges are not always so good.

---

Most lawyers I talk to think juries are capricious and use that as leverage to settle cases. In any event, I think jury service for civil offenses amounts to a government taking. We aren't being compensated for our time to serve in someone else's economic interests. I don't disagree that our system of law currently relies on civil juries, but it doesn't have to be that way.

I proposed a solution to this in law school: using baseball style arbitration to handle awards. Rather than having juries decide what to award, require each side to propose an award and the jury to select from one of those proposals. Essentially make each side present a best and final and do not allow juries to freelance. I believe that would greatly reduce the chances of outsized and inappropriate awards and would force more reasonable settlements of civil actions. I think we would see much narrower bid ask spreads. I'm not so sure I would still propose that system, but there are still some benefits that I would love to see explored.

SoCalie said:

---

I think your question about the availability of the vaccine is very interesting. The whole COVID pandemic thing is such a unique situation. And, the fact that there is a vaccine available makes a negligence suit (like the one being discussed here) even more interesting. It is something that would certainly come into play if the lawsuit were to survive summary judgment and head towards trial.

For example, it would be used to show the jury that the plaintiff (not the university) is responsible for contracting COVID. i.e. the defense would present information such as: the plaintiff knew of the risk of COVID, and what he/she could have done to decrease that risk, yet...they chose not to wear a mask to the game, chose to sit in the middle of the crowd (vs. in an uncrowded area), chose not to get vaccinated, even though getting vaccinated was possible with little effort and at no cost to the plaintiff, etc., etc. The jury would take all that information into account when determining how much responsibility (for contracting COVID) should be attributed to the plaintiff vs the university.

---

All of that being said, as long as the university follows the local, state and federal guidelines regarding COVID (which they have consistently done thus far, and I expect that continue...and they may even adopt a few more additional measures that are easy to implement, for further protection), I do not believe law suits against the university (as discussed in this thread) would survive summary judgment. (As a young associate, this is the bulk of work I did when defending against negligence claims.)

Again, the plaintiff/fan would, ultimately, have to be able to prove that (1) the university was negligent/reckless (or worse, as described in MSaviolives' post above) by failing to take reasonable steps to protect the public - something that the university would fulfill by following local, state and federal guidelines, (2) that the fan contracted COVID AT the game, and (3) that the failure/negligence of the university was what caused the plaintiff/fan to contract COVID.

I see no reason why the university would change course and all of the sudden stop following the guidelines set forth by the City of Berkeley, Alameda County, State of CA and federal government. So, no negligence.

I don't see how it would be possible to prove #2 above.

And, IF, for some crazy reason, the plaintiff/fan IS able to prove #2 above, it would be EXTREMELY difficult, if not impossible to prove #3 as well.

Side Note:
Frankly, I found it to be pretty darn easy to prevail on Motions for Summary Judgment in negligence cases - NOT because I am some special person...but, because I think that the standard plaintiffs have to meet are pretty high. (Unless the negligence was clear, and causation is easy to prove. This is NOT the case here.) In fact, the main reason I became totally disillusioned with being an attorney - and chose to change paths in life - is because I won a motion for summary judgment in a horrible wrongful death case that, in my opinion...and, in terms of my personal sense of morality and ethics/what is right and wrong - I should have lost. It was the most horrible argument I ever made, and it was fabulously successful...and, I cried the entire way home from court. There was a little celebration the next day at work with cake and balloons because it was a big case....meanwhile, I told my boss that I just could not continue as an attorney.

---

Interesting perspective here...and thanks.

mbBear said:

---

SoCalie said:

---

I think your question about the availability of the vaccine is very interesting. The whole COVID pandemic thing is such a unique situation. And, the fact that there is a vaccine available makes a negligence suit (like the one being discussed here) even more interesting. It is something that would certainly come into play if the lawsuit were to survive summary judgment and head towards trial.

For example, it would be used to show the jury that the plaintiff (not the university) is responsible for contracting COVID. i.e. the defense would present information such as: the plaintiff knew of the risk of COVID, and what he/she could have done to decrease that risk, yet...they chose not to wear a mask to the game, chose to sit in the middle of the crowd (vs. in an uncrowded area), chose not to get vaccinated, even though getting vaccinated was possible with little effort and at no cost to the plaintiff, etc., etc. The jury would take all that information into account when determining how much responsibility (for contracting COVID) should be attributed to the plaintiff vs the university.

---

All of that being said, as long as the university follows the local, state and federal guidelines regarding COVID (which they have consistently done thus far, and I expect that continue...and they may even adopt a few more additional measures that are easy to implement, for further protection), I do not believe law suits against the university (as discussed in this thread) would survive summary judgment. (As a young associate, this is the bulk of work I did when defending against negligence claims.)

Again, the plaintiff/fan would, ultimately, have to be able to prove that (1) the university was negligent/reckless (or worse, as described in MSaviolives' post above) by failing to take reasonable steps to protect the public - something that the university would fulfill by following local, state and federal guidelines, (2) that the fan contracted COVID AT the game, and (3) that the failure/negligence of the university was what caused the plaintiff/fan to contract COVID.

I see no reason why the university would change course and all of the sudden stop following the guidelines set forth by the City of Berkeley, Alameda County, State of CA and federal government. So, no negligence.

I don't see how it would be possible to prove #2 above.

And, IF, for some crazy reason, the plaintiff/fan IS able to prove #2 above, it would be EXTREMELY difficult, if not impossible to prove #3 as well.

Side Note:
Frankly, I found it to be pretty darn easy to prevail on Motions for Summary Judgment in negligence cases - NOT because I am some special person...but, because I think that the standard plaintiffs have to meet are pretty high. (Unless the negligence was clear, and causation is easy to prove. This is NOT the case here.) In fact, the main reason I became totally disillusioned with being an attorney - and chose to change paths in life - is because I won a motion for summary judgment in a horrible wrongful death case that, in my opinion...and, in terms of my personal sense of morality and ethics/what is right and wrong - I should have lost. It was the most horrible argument I ever made, and it was fabulously successful...and, I cried the entire way home from court. There was a little celebration the next day at work with cake and balloons because it was a big case....meanwhile, I told my boss that I just could not continue as an attorney.

---

Interesting perspective here...and thanks.

---

Agree very interesting side note. . There are many similar stories for others who went into law became disillusioned then went on to other careers.

I did not become a lawyer until I was 30 so I had a slightly more mature perspective than someone who become a lawyer at 25 or 26. My choices were different than if I had gone straight from undergrad to law school. I have mentored many young lawyers just starting their careers.
My advice has been;
1. Figure out what things you like to do (enjoy doing) professionally.
2. Of those figure out what you are good at doing.
3. Then focus on how you might make a living doing what you like to do and are good at doing.
4. Develop a 1-year plan, a 5-year plan and a 10-year plan. And regularly reassess and revise those plans as you gain experience. Don't get complacent or just "go with the flow". if you find that you are not enjoying what you are doing (or where your plan is taking you) change what you are doing ( or your plan) . But make it a conscious decision.
5. Don't get sucked into a job just for the money. Family (however you define it) a sense of self worth and emotional satisfaction are much more important so keep them in focus.
6. Never stop learning. The world is always changing. You have to learn to change with it.
7. Finally Don't work for jerks. Eventually you will be sorry if you do.

Wow! Every single one of those points is excellent advice. I wish someone had shared that wisdom with me when I was trying to figure out what I wanted to do after college. I think I did the opposite of every single one of those points. Seriously, every single one. Arghhh!

The attorneys you have mentored are very fortunate. I bet the ones that followed your advice are extremely thankful that they did, and very grateful for your input/support.

SoCalie said:

---

Wow! Every single one of those points is excellent advice. I wish someone had shared that wisdom with me when I was trying to figure out what I wanted to do after college. I think I did the opposite of every single one of those points. Seriously, every single one. Arghhh!

The attorneys you have mentored are very fortunate. I bet the ones that followed your advice are extremely thankful that they did, and very grateful for your input/support.

---

Well it appears that you eventually made the correct career decision for yourself. I feel bad for many of the attorneys (even those who appear successful) who have not made the tough decision that you have made. I know it is tough to give up a well paid job which you can do well.

When I was "Summer Associate" at a large Wall Street law firm I was initially enthralled by the high class life of practice in The Big Apple. (Hey I came from a poor family in Central California). But by the end of that Summer I realized that so many of the attorneys there were not really happy there and that partnership came at the price of either a heart attack or a divorce. So I turned down that firm's job offer.

In my final year at Boalt Hall (now Berkeley Law) I was offered a job by the then largest law firm in San Francisco at what was then a high salary. I asked in what practice area I would be assigned. They said Labor Law. I checked out that firm (as well as I could in the days before The Internet) and discovered that they represented big manufacturers and agricultural conglomerates. As a dark complected Mexican American I guessed that I would be put on the team fighting against Cesar Chavez and the farm worker's union. So I politely turned down that offer.

Hijacking another hijacked thread is only acceptable because

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Hijacking another hijacked thread is only acceptable because

---

Exactly.

oskidunker said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Chabbear said:

---

Time will tell but it is getting late for season tickets to be arranged and sent out.

---

Would guess all electronic tickets via phone are coming exclusively.

Major pro venues have been doing electronic only delivery for 3-4 years now, some for even longer.

Easy to reissue, modify... Or cancel.

Downside is that the venues need a high capacity wifi system for all ticket holders to jump on in case the cell networks bog down, which they will.

---

Not going to happen. Too many older people with no i phones. The SF Giants bactracked on this . I dont want an E ticket even though I have i phone, i pad and mac.

---

Looking like there is now about a 100% chance mobile only tickets happen...

I saw that. I hope it works out.