Parkland Middle School student hit, killed on Loop 375 after leaving campus during walkout

yes, right on!!

 

And that means.... what exactly? You weren't advancing on my point, I see no need to advance on your erroneous strawman.
They can make the claim, its just frivolous and frivolous claims are actionable. You get the waiver to create that situation. That's its function to estop them.

 

did it nothing there !!

 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/P...7cc0ef8!8m2!3d31.8967832!4d-106.3986923?hl=en

Maybe someone could explain to me how the kids made it to 375 if they were being supervised while on the football field?

 

You were smart, I was trusting and went and looked and found only general responsibility links and opinion. I am not trusting what's his name again.

 

Yes plaintiffs and defendants make arguments to a jury, the finder of facts. Where did I say differently?

The formula is good law and of course requires application as with any other concept. The standard is subjective, yes, and that's never been at issue.

I'm wondering if you had a point here or were you just going for the "baffle them with BS" tactic?

 

Good point here. A reasonable measure would've been to put a few teachers between the field and the highway on the back side in case of people hopping that puny little 6 ft chain link fence visible on the street view from the highway feeder

 

No straw man. I said that a claim can be made but that does not mean that a claim will result in a win. If that was the case we would not need any civil courts just a claims made office and a clerk would stamp "claims made' you win a judgement. ".

 

well maybe when you 'wen' through the posts you missed a little something something?

When I'm not hitting this place up on breaks between billable work I'll show you what I was talking about

 

Read the quote the courts need to make a decision on reasonableness. The "formula" is a guideline not an 1+3=4 case.

 

Fine show me evidence.

 

The claim doesn't come before the court really, it is dismissed almost immediately as frivolous at best and an intentional fraud on the court at worst from which sanctions result. This is because either a) the claim has no factual basis because they were warned etc or b) the claim is outright a lie presented to the court because it claims they were not warned when in fact they were.

Texas and other states even have a new way of dealing with this even earlier: Dismissal for baseless cause of action for which attorneys fees are awarded. You simply provide the waiver to the court and make a motion, have a hearing.

 

The jury actually decides. They use the formula to do so.
Again: No one has said its purely objective, just that this is not 'Nam Smokey, this is bowling there are rules.

You've got this problem where you attack arguments not made and attribute them to me. Stop doing that, its annoying.

 

You should go back and read the post where I told you to read..... you'll notice you're missing numerous possibilities.
Perhaps you should read more closely?

 

Naw, I'm done with the assumptions and possibilities. I'm not ready to find someone guilty with no more than has been made public. That said, you do you.

 

They never went to the football field. They went out a side door and jumped a fence. Their plan all along was to skip the event and go to the park.

 

During a jury tial ,of course the jury decides.

Not sure what Vietnam reference means. I never called that place "Nam".
If I did indeed attribute a quote to you in error I will check it.

 

Do you have a link by any chance? That is an extremely important fact.

 

Well if you won't read the responses I make for content, how am I to help you?

Also: I wasn't asking you to find anyone guilty dear. I'm stating my opinion that this was negligence, and I've made my argument.
This is an internet forum where people often do that.

You may likewise do yourself

 

Yeah.... what's your point here?

Its a movie quote from the Big Lebowski. Google "OVER THE LINE MARK IT ZERO BIG LEBOWSKI" You want the full scene, not just the climax

 

https://goo.gl/maps/axkdVKEUnzL2

That "wall"? Its like 3-5 feet high. I've shown you a google street view from Bomarc St which has a view of the back side of the school, the athletic fields (football farthest left) and the wall. And again: Why were there NO teachers supervising the rally on the edge of campus for kids running off? Its LITERALLY the edge of campus, right next to a highway, the fences wouldn't keep my DOG penned up (he's a jumper. Still has his balls so he likes to go prowling for *****) AND its 4/20.

 

Sure-

 

Several students decided to hop the fence. You can see it pictured. Tell me why you find it reasonable not to have a teacher who can stand at that corner there and watch for kids playing hooky?

 

How reasonable is it to spread out the supervisors to places where the kids were not supposed to be, leaving the mass of students with limited supervision?

 

We've already established they hadn't supervised the mass other than to stand at the gate.

How reasonable is it not to post someone on the BACK SIDE of a riotous assembly which is protected by a fence that wouldn't keep my dog penned up, ON 4/20, which said back side backs up DIRECTLY to a highway (making for easy get aways)?

The sight lines are clear it would take 1 - 3 (since one side is covered by the school itself) persons. WHERE IS THE HUGE BURDEN of that? Remember the formula Potential + gravity of harm v Burden + utility of change. If the burden is too high the change isn't reasonably required.
1-3 supervisors watching the edges of the crowd ain't exactly asking for the moon dude.
If that's so burdensome what you do instead is you don't have the ****ing assembly.