Penn State scandal/JoePa fired - Page 12

SkinsfaninNJ · #**166** 11-18-2011, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justinskins

I agree that it seems stunning. But, the general rule is that there is no duty to rescue, even when the person in need of rescue is a child. There are also proximate cause issues when there is a third party (Sandusky) whose criminal acts intervene between the plaintiff (the kids) and the defendant (Penn State officials). So, by the general rule, you are not liable if you see someone assaulting a child on your morning jog and do nothing. There are sometimes exceptions when the defendant owes a special duty to the plaintiff (e.g. university-student), but so far as I know the university had no such relationship with the children abused. I would certainly not say it's impossible because I don't know what kinds of exceptions Pennsylvania judges have carved out on these issues. I am skeptical, though.

I will also say that, having glanced briefly at the child abuse reporting statute in Pennsylvania, it seems like a stretch to apply it to Curley and Schultz (as the police have). It requires reporting when (1) the person's job brings him into contact with children and (2) the child that the person suspects of abuse is under his care. Maybe the first condition applies to Curley and Schultz here, but it's not clear at all to me that the second does. Once again, the caveat is that I don't know how Pa. courts have interpreted that statute. Now, if those charge somehow stick then maybe that could establish a legal duty that transfers to a negligence claim. But under conventional negligence doctrine I just don't see it. I don't doubt that a jury could be swayed, but first you have to survive a motion to dismiss and summary judgment and that is hard if you don't have the law on your side.

Keep in mind, employers (University and possibly the administrators) are responsible for the actions of their employees (Sandusky). That probably carried forward into retirement since they gave Sandusky same access and rights to the University that he enjoyed as an employee.

justinskins · #**167** 11-18-2011, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinsfaninNJ

Keep in mind, employers (University and possibly the administrators) are responsible for the actions of their employees (Sandusky). That probably carried forward into retirement since they gave Sandusky same access and rights to the University that he enjoyed as an employee.

I'm not sure about that. Doesn't the employee have to be acting within the scope of his employment for the employer to become vicariously liable?

However, after talking it over with my torts prof today I'm not as skeptical about the potential plaintiffs' chances as I was last night. There may be some authority supporting a duty to warn here. Whether or not that can overcome the law's general hostility against a duty to rescue, I don't know. But it definitely seems more like a borderline case to me.

akhhorus · #**168** 11-18-2011, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinsfaninNJ

Penn State University will not be able to invoke sovereign immunity

OT: but do you know why Texas Tech invoked that? Leach reportedly had an affidavit from Adam James saying that he(Leach) never put him in a closet and it was all a big joke that Craig James used to try and force Leach out. As soon as TTU saw it, they invoked the immunity clause to kill the lawsuit.

cal_junior · #**169** 11-23-2011, 08:54 AM

NY Times profile of "Victim 1." Great reporting here:

LINK

BIGREDSKINSFAN1963 · #**170** 11-23-2011, 10:07 PM

can somebody answer this please? if the graduate assistant DID NOT make an attempt to stop sandusky when he saw him raping that 10 year old boy,could'nt he be charged with a major felony for not helping him?
and i just wonder how anybody that walks up and sees a kid being abused like that,can walk away and not do a damn thing but tell his daddy who tells him to tell his boss,am i alone here? most of us here would stop it,and i know i would have have killed the guy!
and i bet sandusky kills himself before he goes to jail,and paterno will be dead of lung cancer within a year!

RedskinsDave · #**171** 11-24-2011, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIGREDSKINSFAN1963

can somebody answer this please? if the graduate assistant DID NOT make an attempt to stop sandusky when he saw him raping that 10 year old boy,could'nt he be charged with a major felony for not helping him?
and i just wonder how anybody that walks up and sees a kid being abused like that,can walk away and not do a damn thing but tell his daddy who tells him to tell his boss,am i alone here? most of us here would stop it,and i know i would have have killed the guy!
and i bet sandusky kills himself before he goes to jail,and paterno will be dead of lung cancer within a year!

He doesn't have a legal obligation to physically stop the assault. He says they saw him and stopped. There isn't much the law can do. I agree he didn't do enough but I don't think holding him criminally liable will fix anything.

This is Paterno's "Watergate". No one will remember anything else he has done.

CarMike · #**172** 11-25-2011, 07:29 AM

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...ky_family.html

Attorney: Jerry Sandusky family member made recent allegation

Quote:

The attorney for Jerry Sandusky says one of the two new cases of alleged sexual abuse under investigation by Children and Youth Services was made by a family member of Sandusky.

The Patriot-News reported yesterday that the new cases were reported less than 60 days ago and are in the initial stages of investigation.

Attorney Joe Amendola said the allegations stem from difficulties within the child's immediate family. He said the assault is alleged to have occurred prior to Sandusky's arrest earlier this month, but was not brought to the authorities attention until after the former Penn State coach was charged.

The Patriot-News is withholding the child's relationship to Sandusky to shield the child's identity.

If these two cases are found to be credible, they would be the first known cases to be reported since Sandusky's arrest that would involve children. All of the other young men who came forward to the grand jury and since indictments were handed down are now over 18, even though the assaults are alleged to have occurred when they were as young as seven or eight years old.

Sandusky was indicted Nov. 4, charged with 40 counts of sex crimes against boys after an almost three-year grand jury investigation.

So the scum even likes his own family members as well???

akhhorus · #**173** 12-07-2011, 02:44 PM

Sandusky arrested and indicted on 4 more charges. I won't post the PDF of the indictment because its disturbing. He's being held in jail(finally).

Keino · #**174** 12-07-2011, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Sandusky arrested and indicted on 4 more charges. I won't post the PDF of the indictment because its disturbing. He's being held in jail(finally).

Go ahead and post it. People know that they click at their own risk.

akhhorus · #**175** 12-07-2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keino

Go ahead and post it. People know that they click at their own risk.

Damnit, I'm sick of your playoff prop....oh wrong thread...sorry...

The Grand jury report: read at your own peril

Keino · #**176** 12-07-2011, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Sandusky arrested and indicted on 4 more charges. I won't post the PDF of the indictment because its disturbing. He's being held in jail(finally).

Just read it. Hopefully they won't let his ass back out.

cal_junior · #**177** 12-08-2011, 08:57 AM

Looks like this latest GJ report unveils a new villain: Dorothy Sandusky.

Quote:

"The victim testified that on at least one occasion he screamed for help, knowing that Sandusky's wife was upstairs, but no one every came to help him."

Keino · #**178** 12-08-2011, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cal_junior

Looks like this latest GJ report unveils a new villain: Dorothy Sandusky.

When I read that I was wondering if the Mrs. was complicit, knew what was going on and pretended she didn't/ignored it or if she simply didn't hear it. I wonder if she will be made to testify to these issues.

cal_junior · #**179** 12-08-2011, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keino

When I read that I was wondering if the Mrs. was complicit, knew what was going on and pretended she didn't/ignored it or if she simply didn't hear it. I wonder if she will be made to testify to these issues.

Not to trivialize things, but I picture a scene from a Lifetime original movie where Mrs. Sandusky is sitting at the kitchen table and eyeing a huge bottle of sleeping pills while listening to the kid's screams in the background.

It's an impossible situation and I'm betting she may have tried her hardest not to know.

CNYSkinFan · #**180** 12-08-2011, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cal_junior

Looks like this latest GJ report unveils a new villain: Dorothy Sandusky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keino

When I read that I was wondering if the Mrs. was complicit, knew what was going on and pretended she didn't/ignored it or if she simply didn't hear it. I wonder if she will be made to testify to these issues.

eerily similar to the Bernie Fine accusers actually having relations with Bernie's wife and her knowing everything that went on.

People like this make me sick