Texas Aggies Bonfire Tragedy.

The Texas Board of Professional Engineers announced in 2000 that the Aggie Bonfire met the requirements to be considered a complex construction project that should be regulated by state engineering laws. If Bonfire is resumed by the university in its former state, it will have to be designed and overseen by a professional engineer. What an oxymoron.

I was surprised about the the way the resulting litigation was adjudged but probably shouldn't have been as it was an accident in Texas, the state of business opportunities.

Quote:

---

Parents of students injured or killed in the 1999 collapse filed lawsuits against Texas A&M officials, including President Ray Bowen, Vice President of Student Affairs J. Malon Southerland, the 1999 redpots, and the university. In one of the six lawsuits, plaintiffs alleged that A&M officials [were liable] by placing those victims in a "state-created danger" by not ensuring Bonfire's structural integrity and by allowing unqualified students to work on the stack. The plaintiffs pointed to a $2 million liability policy the university obtained in 1996 and accidental death and dismemberment insurance policies that the university obtained for student workers as early as 1987 as proof that the administrators knew of the dangers of Bonfire. ... The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissed all claims against the Texas A&M officials. In 2005, [roughly half of the defensants] settled their portion of the case for an estimated $4.25 million, paid by their insurance companies. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the remaining lawsuits against Texas A&M and its officials in April 2007. In October 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the appeals court ruling.

---

Wind gusts in the area that day were 61 mph, and ND had practiced indoors the day before due to the same storm. Tressel's quote is most telling, also, showing how the head coach is in complete control of all things surrounding practice. The young man tweeted while he was up there how scared sh*tless he was...yeah, Kelly had NO idea about how unsafe it was.

If this were intentional on Kelly's part, that kind of sounds like murder, in which case he should go to prison for one heckuva long time. Since this appears to be a case of gross negligence, Kelly should definitely be held accountable and should be fired.

LafayetteBear;407023 said:

---

[COLOR="Blue"]89Bear: Kelly may well have known. He certainly did in your opinion (and many others) but, frankly, your opinion will make little difference in any criminal prosecution or civil lawsuit concerning this incident. People screw up ALL THE TIME. It's called negligence. And generally, people are not subject to criminal prosecution for their negligence (as opposed to their intentional misconduct).

You may believe he is responsible, but proving someone is legally responsible is a different matter than simply forming an opinion. Kelly will almost certainly deny that anyone said anything to him about wind danger. He will stress how busy he was. ND's attorney will point out the kid's contributory negligence, climbing up into that tower with the wind gusting so hard, and after Tweeting that he did not feel he was going to live much longer, etc.

Ultimately, I think ND gets stuck with a good sized civil judgment or settlement, but that Kelly is not held personally liable for anything, and is not fired. There are different standards of culpability (i.e., blameworthiness), and if all that can be shown is that Kelly was guilty of ordinary negligence, then he will skate on this.[/COLOR]

---

I understand what you are saying.

Take away all the legal arguments and I simply believe that Kelly should be held responsible because he screwed up here. It was his call and his call alone to practice in those conditions. I understand my opinion means nothing here. It is a very sad situation. College coaches are way too powerful and controlling and here is just one small example.

GB54;406959 said:

---

Why would it be any different than if it happened at Southern Methodist University?

---

I was saying ND's mission is different than purely secular schools.

I don't know the details of all of the other non-secular schools, but it is probably equally true for them too (e.g., SMU, BYU, TCU, etc.).

Personally, I don't see that there is really a discussion to be had.

Kelly should ABSOLUTELY be fired.

A horrific tragedy that should never have happened. Any individual with such poor judgment should never be put in charge of students.

tequila4kapp;407127 said:

---

I was saying ND's mission is different than purely secular schools.

I don't know the details of all of the other non-secular schools, but it is probably equally true for them too (e.g., SMU, BYU, TCU, etc.).

---

Actually I think the "mission" would be the same whether it happened at ND, Cal, Texas or SMU-sorrow at the loss of life.

GB54;407154 said:

---

Actually I think the "mission" would be the same whether it happened at ND, Cal, Texas or SMU-sorrow at the loss of life.

---

Sorrow at loss of life is a different topic than defining the proper basis for evaluating Kelly's culpability (in the context of making a firing decision).

Many posts discuss elements of negligence and whether or not Kelly's actions meet the standard, presumably as a test for evaluating whether or not he should be fired. I am suggesting this line of reasoning is enough at a secular school, as the school's collective values are essentially reflected in state law, but perhaps it is not enough at a school like ND that holds itself to a higher/different standard (from ND's MS: "...The aim is to create a sense of human solidarity and concern for the common good that will bear fruit as learning becomes service to justice. ...") It seems to me ND needs to ask the negligence questions and whether or not Kelly's values, which place winning a football game above the safety of students, create human solidarity and justice, and express concern for the oppressed, etc.