Mr. Class V.: Case Study
1. The facts that give rise to the lawsuit were that Mr. Class (The Plaintiff) who was a former football player at Towson University was severely injured. During a routine practice, the plaintiff collapsed on the field resulting in a heat stroke and liver failure. The plaintiff survived his life-threatening injuries by receiving a liver transplant and extensive rehabilitation. However, after the plaintiff’s successful recovery and rehabilitation, the plaintiff tried to reinstate into the Towson University’s football program. Unfortunately, he was denied based on the team’s physician stating that even though Mr. Class has recovered, he is still at great risk of falling victim of heat stroke; which could potentially lead to another catastrophic
…show more content…
health emergency. Nevertheless, the plaintiff brought the case to the court stating that Towson University violated his rights after being cleared from his doctors to play football under special monitoring and extra padding.
2. According to the plaintiff, there were two specific reasons as to how Towson University violated both the Rehabilitation Act and the American Disability Act. The plaintiff claims that firstly, the university violated the Rehabilitation Act when the football program and its physicians banned Mr. Class from participating in any football activities because of his illness—even though his successful rehab. Secondly, in regards to the disability violation, the plaintiff states that because of his disability of being a transplant recipient and suffering from a heat stroke, the university, and its football program are treating him differently and unfairly. This difference in treatment of banning the plaintiff from participating in any football- related activities from his fellow peers on the team. This unjust treatment and withholding the plaintiff from participating in any football activities based on the claims of the plaintiff violates both the Rehabilitation Act and the American Disability Act.
3. The district court first ruled in Class’ favor because the court stated that the University violated both acts by denying the plaintiff the ability to return to regular football activity even after being approved by his doctors, both specialists in their particular fields of liver transplants and heat strokes. Nevertheless, even though the district court ruled in Mr. Class decision, the University decided to appeal the decision brought down by the district court. In the appeal court, they favored in Towson University, stating that the University was well within its rights to deny Class from resuming football activities. According to Towson University, the only way a student-athlete can return back to the field after an injury or illness is by being granted a clearance by the team’s physician. Unfortunately, due to Mr. Class’ disability and high-risk of being subjected to a future heat stroke, he was not granted the medical clearance to protect the student-athlete from further illness and the University for liability. Therefore, the appeal court ruled in the University’s favor.
4.
(#4-7) According to the case, the plaintiff should not be held as semi liable for his injuries while attending the Daytona International Speedway. My client should receive a decision in his favor because NASCAR and the Daytona International Speedway were and are negligent in how races are conducted, the design of the speedway, and the lack of safety barriers to protect spectators, such as my client, from being severely injured during an event. There were several issues that NASCAR and the Daytona International Speedway are responsible for that resulted in the traumatic injury my client sustained. According to my client the numerous problems that resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries are:
“pack racing” — or closely packed groups of vehicles — during NASCAR races. He asserts that contact between the vehicles is simply inevitable in “pack racing,” often resulting in a chain reaction of unpredictable collisions […] the speedway includes steep banks which make the racecars easier to handle, but which also makes it easier for drivers to reach maximum speeds and increases packing. He also claims that the installation of crossover gates at the speedway has decreased the structural integrity of the protective “catch fence” thereby increasing the risk of spectator injury. (Harris v NASCAR
2013)
These insufficiencies that both NASCAR and Daytona International Speedway did not correct before their races have put spectators unknowingly into danger. These dangers, which could have been corrected by NASCAR to protect its spectators to eliminate pack racing and installing adequate screens from flying debris when an accident occurs. Therefore, NASCAR and Dayton are liable for my client injuries. Within the complaint against NASCAR and Dayton International Speedway, NASCAR claimed that when a spectator buys a ticket that the spectator takes some responsibility and risk in case of injury. However, if there are no clear indicators on the ticket or the language is ambiguous, then my client should not take responsibility for his injuries occurred during a racing event due to inadequate fencing. Therefore, NASCAR and Dayton International Speedway is negligent for my client’s injuries.
5. (#8) House Bill 180 that was constructed my Rep. Bill McCamley was to close the loophole of parents and student-athletes finding ways to bypass the concussion protocol to return back to playing their respective sport. The proposed bill will close the loophole by placing an appeals process where parents and student-athletes would have to bring their claim to an executive director of the New Mexico Activities Association (NMAA) who is knowledgeable about the concussion protocol instead of a court to determine if they are eligible of bypassing the concussion protocol or if the student-athlete has to remain on the protocol for their health and safety.
6. (#9) I believe that Bill 180, as well as Bill 137, are great legislation because these bills will protect student-athletes from returning back to sports with a head injury before they are cleared. This will eliminate an athlete from possible sustaining another head injury while healing from a previous one. However, I can also see the downside from the two bills. In my opinion, the negative effects will be that if student-athletes are no longer having any symptoms of a concussion, but they are withheld from playing sports because either not finished with the proposed “resting” days or the NMAA denies an appeal against the protocol then the student-athlete will not be able to participate in important or popular games because they were not cleared by the committee. Therefore, missing those game(s). Nevertheless, if I were a legislator, I would definitely approve both the House and Senate Bills 180 and 137, respectively to protect student-athletes from putting their health in danger to participate in a game.
7. (#10) Personally, I believe that the most poignant and beneficial topic that was discussed in the interview regarding concussions in sports was detecting CTE in the living. By being able to detect CTE in living athletes, more lives would be saved in informing athletes about their head injuries. With the research that Dr. Hainline is conducting along with Boston University, being able to detect CTE will save many athlete lives in sport. Hopefully, with the technology to detect early signs of CTE that there will be a way to reverse and treat brain damage.
health emergency. Nevertheless, the plaintiff brought the case to the court stating that Towson University violated his rights after being cleared from his doctors to play football under special monitoring and extra padding.
2. According to the plaintiff, there were two specific reasons as to how Towson University violated both the Rehabilitation Act and the American Disability Act. The plaintiff claims that firstly, the university violated the Rehabilitation Act when the football program and its physicians banned Mr. Class from participating in any football activities because of his illness—even though his successful rehab. Secondly, in regards to the disability violation, the plaintiff states that because of his disability of being a transplant recipient and suffering from a heat stroke, the university, and its football program are treating him differently and unfairly. This difference in treatment of banning the plaintiff from participating in any football- related activities from his fellow peers on the team. This unjust treatment and withholding the plaintiff from participating in any football activities based on the claims of the plaintiff violates both the Rehabilitation Act and the American Disability Act.
3. The district court first ruled in Class’ favor because the court stated that the University violated both acts by denying the plaintiff the ability to return to regular football activity even after being approved by his doctors, both specialists in their particular fields of liver transplants and heat strokes. Nevertheless, even though the district court ruled in Mr. Class decision, the University decided to appeal the decision brought down by the district court. In the appeal court, they favored in Towson University, stating that the University was well within its rights to deny Class from resuming football activities. According to Towson University, the only way a student-athlete can return back to the field after an injury or illness is by being granted a clearance by the team’s physician. Unfortunately, due to Mr. Class’ disability and high-risk of being subjected to a future heat stroke, he was not granted the medical clearance to protect the student-athlete from further illness and the University for liability. Therefore, the appeal court ruled in the University’s favor.
4.
(#4-7) According to the case, the plaintiff should not be held as semi liable for his injuries while attending the Daytona International Speedway. My client should receive a decision in his favor because NASCAR and the Daytona International Speedway were and are negligent in how races are conducted, the design of the speedway, and the lack of safety barriers to protect spectators, such as my client, from being severely injured during an event. There were several issues that NASCAR and the Daytona International Speedway are responsible for that resulted in the traumatic injury my client sustained. According to my client the numerous problems that resulted in the plaintiff’s injuries are:
“pack racing” — or closely packed groups of vehicles — during NASCAR races. He asserts that contact between the vehicles is simply inevitable in “pack racing,” often resulting in a chain reaction of unpredictable collisions […] the speedway includes steep banks which make the racecars easier to handle, but which also makes it easier for drivers to reach maximum speeds and increases packing. He also claims that the installation of crossover gates at the speedway has decreased the structural integrity of the protective “catch fence” thereby increasing the risk of spectator injury. (Harris v NASCAR
2013)
These insufficiencies that both NASCAR and Daytona International Speedway did not correct before their races have put spectators unknowingly into danger. These dangers, which could have been corrected by NASCAR to protect its spectators to eliminate pack racing and installing adequate screens from flying debris when an accident occurs. Therefore, NASCAR and Dayton are liable for my client injuries. Within the complaint against NASCAR and Dayton International Speedway, NASCAR claimed that when a spectator buys a ticket that the spectator takes some responsibility and risk in case of injury. However, if there are no clear indicators on the ticket or the language is ambiguous, then my client should not take responsibility for his injuries occurred during a racing event due to inadequate fencing. Therefore, NASCAR and Dayton International Speedway is negligent for my client’s injuries.
5. (#8) House Bill 180 that was constructed my Rep. Bill McCamley was to close the loophole of parents and student-athletes finding ways to bypass the concussion protocol to return back to playing their respective sport. The proposed bill will close the loophole by placing an appeals process where parents and student-athletes would have to bring their claim to an executive director of the New Mexico Activities Association (NMAA) who is knowledgeable about the concussion protocol instead of a court to determine if they are eligible of bypassing the concussion protocol or if the student-athlete has to remain on the protocol for their health and safety.
6. (#9) I believe that Bill 180, as well as Bill 137, are great legislation because these bills will protect student-athletes from returning back to sports with a head injury before they are cleared. This will eliminate an athlete from possible sustaining another head injury while healing from a previous one. However, I can also see the downside from the two bills. In my opinion, the negative effects will be that if student-athletes are no longer having any symptoms of a concussion, but they are withheld from playing sports because either not finished with the proposed “resting” days or the NMAA denies an appeal against the protocol then the student-athlete will not be able to participate in important or popular games because they were not cleared by the committee. Therefore, missing those game(s). Nevertheless, if I were a legislator, I would definitely approve both the House and Senate Bills 180 and 137, respectively to protect student-athletes from putting their health in danger to participate in a game.
7. (#10) Personally, I believe that the most poignant and beneficial topic that was discussed in the interview regarding concussions in sports was detecting CTE in the living. By being able to detect CTE in living athletes, more lives would be saved in informing athletes about their head injuries. With the research that Dr. Hainline is conducting along with Boston University, being able to detect CTE will save many athlete lives in sport. Hopefully, with the technology to detect early signs of CTE that there will be a way to reverse and treat brain damage.