1 / 23

Minnesota Mock Trial 2009 - 2010

Minnesota Mock Trial 2009 - 2010. Kelly Anderson v. Dale Rockford and John Reilly High School. The Essentials of the Case. Guide to the Case Materials Introduction to the Facts and the Law A Closer Examination of the Evidence. Guide to the Case Materials: Getting Started. Procedure

fleta
Download Presentation

Minnesota Mock Trial 2009 - 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Minnesota Mock Trial 2009 - 2010 Kelly Anderson v. Dale Rockford and John Reilly High School

  2. The Essentials of the Case • Guide to the Case Materials • Introduction to the Facts and the Law • A Closer Examination of the Evidence

  3. Guide to the Case Materials: Getting Started • Procedure • Facts • Law • Witnesses • Theme

  4. Plaintiff’s Witnesses Plaintiff, Kelly Anderson Student, Parker Vang Expert, Lynn Garcia, Ph.D Defendants’ Witnesses Defendant, Dale Rockford Assistant Principal and Athletic Director, Jamie Hagar Expert, Adrian Brady Introduction to the Facts and the Law: Meet the Witnesses

  5. Introduction to the Facts and the Law:The Theory of Negligence • Intentional Torts • Examples: Battery, Trespass • Negligence • No specific prohibitions • Definition: any conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

  6. Introduction to the Facts and the Law:The Theory of Negligence Negligence • Definition: any conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others. • Duty • Breach of Duty • Causation • Harm

  7. Breach of Duty(the most visible element of negligence) Definition of “negligence” Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Ask yourself what a reasonable person would have done in these circumstances. Negligence occurs when a person: 1. Does something a reasonable person would not do; or 2. Fails to do something a reasonable person would do.

  8. Causation(the hidden element of negligence) • Plaintiff must prove that the harm was in fact caused by the Defendants. • “Breach of Duty” and “Harm” are not enough by themselves • Plaintiff must prove that the relationship between the Defendants’ wrongdoing and the Plaintiff’s harm is legally significant • Plaintiff must convince the judge that Defendants not only caused the harm, but that as a matter of principle or policy, Defendants should be liable for it.

  9. Applying the Theory of Negligence Who is at fault?

  10. Applying the Theory of Negligencea look at the special verdict form 1. Was Defendant Dale Rockford negligent? Yes or No ___________ 2. If you answered “Yes” to Question #1, then answer the following question: Was this negligence by Dale Rockford a cause of Jordan Anderson’s death? Yes or No ___________

  11. Applying the Theory of NegligenceThe Case for Dale Rockford • Were Dale Rockford’s acts or omissions reasonable? • Did these acts or omissions cause Jordan Anderson’s death?

  12. Applying the Theory of Negligence Return to the Special Verdict Form: Taking all of the fault that contributed as a cause of Jordan Anderson’s death as 100%, what percentage of fault do you attribute to: Dale Rockford __________ John Reilly High School __________ Jordan Anderson __________ Kelly Anderson __________

  13. Applying the Theory of NegligenceSpecial Legal Considerations • John Reilly High School • Employer • Sponsor of the Athletic Program • Jordan Anderson • A Minor • Contributory negligence

  14. Review: Negligence • Reasonable conduct Was there a breach of duty? • Legal cause Did the breach cause the harm? • Contributory negligence Allocation of responsibility 50% rule

  15. A Closer Examination of the EvidenceDefendants’ Witnesses Dale Rockford • Character • Circumstances • Actions

  16. A Closer Examination of the EvidenceDefendants’ Witnesses Jamie Hagar • Character • Circumstances • Actions • plus: What was John Reilly High School’s role in events?

  17. A Closer Examination of the EvidenceDefendants’ Witnesses Adrian Brady • Credentials • Foundation for Analysis • Expert Conclusions • plus: What are the weaknesses in Plaintiff’s case?

  18. A Closer Examination of the EvidencePlaintiff’s Witnesses Kelly Anderson • Character • Circumstances • Actions Compare and contrast Anderson’s role as parent against Rockford’s role as coach.

  19. A Closer Examination of the EvidencePlaintiff’s Witnesses Parker Vang Just corroborative evidence, or more?

  20. A Closer Examination of the EvidencePlaintiff’s Witnesses Lynn Garcia, Ph.D • Credentials • Foundation for Analysis • Expert Conclusions Think about: what experiences do these experts share with other witnesses? How do their experiences reflect feelings on reasonable conduct for coaches? For athletic programs?

  21. A Closer Examination of the EvidenceExhibits • Exhibit 1: AIA Position Statement Form 14.13 • Exhibit 2: AIA Bylaws (Portion of Article 14) • Exhibit 3: Curriculum Vitae of Lynn Garcia, Ph.D. • Exhibit 4: Curriculum Vitae of Adrian Brady • Exhibit 5: Anabolica Child Fatality Review Data Form • Exhibit 6: Toxicology Report

  22. A Closer Examination of the EvidenceExhibits • Exhibit 7: NFSHSA Poster (Girl) • Exhibit 8: NFSHSA Poster (Boy) • Exhibit 9: NFSHSA Brochure • Exhibit 10: Report of Race Times • Exhibit 11: Bank Records • Exhibit 12: NIDA InfoFacts, www.drugabuse.gov • Exhibit 13: Anabolic Steroid Study: “Monitoring the Future”

  23. Kelly Anderson v. Dale Rockford and John Reilly High School In conclusion: How many wrongs add up to responsibility?

More Related