Some questions on this ND tragedy

[redsfandan]

Originally Posted by Redsfan320

This. I'm still debating with myself where I stand with this whole thing, but people are saying "Brian Kelly." This sounds like a task that, if anyone on the football staff would have handled, it would've been Kelly's assistant coach's secretary's assistant.

320

Let's say it was the responsibility of the assistant coach's secretary's assistant. If he didn't do his job and that resulted in an injury his higher ups will still share blame. Upper management is responsible for making sure lower management does their job. Sure, the guy that's low on the totem pole and actually dealt with that stuff deserves blame. But, the Head Coach, AD, and the university will also get their share of the blame too. And, when it comes to a lawsuit, that lower guy might not even get named cuz he likely doesn't make much money if any at all. But the coach, AD, and the university will definitely have money that the lawyer(s) can go after.

[LoganBuck]

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/colle...side31.article

[Roy Tucker]

Originally Posted by LoganBuck

I hire high school age students to work on my farm. I realize that I am responsible for their safety. I would never ask a kid to make a decision that could endanger their lives. They don't have the experience to know better. Working with heavy equipment is a task that should have guidance from those with much more experience.

The people who in the end shoulder the responsibility are the facilities coordinator, the head coach, the AD, the board of trustees, etc.

At the end of the day a student is still dead. No amount of helmet stickers, moments of silence or memorial plaques change that. At no point short of a terrific on field injury, should a student die on a college campus.

I agree with this 1000%. You don't put young people in that kind of situation and have to make that kind of decision. For example...

Roy at age 20 would have thought "gee, its pretty windy, I don't know if I ought to go up there, but I really want this job and maybe they'll think I'm a wimp and look for someone else, and maybe its not that bad and anyhow, someone would say something if it was so I'll go up there. Plus, I'm bulletproof".

Current day Roy would say "holy cow, its too damn windy for this, there is no way I'm going up there and I don't care what anyone says. Hey coach, I'm staying down here".

And its my life experiences that have taught me that.

[LoganBuck]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I agree with this 1000%. You don't put young people in that kind of situation and have to make that kind of decision. For example...

Roy at age 20 would have thought "gee, its pretty windy, I don't know if I ought to go up there, but I really want this job and maybe they'll think I'm a wimp and look for someone else, and maybe its not that bad and anyhow, someone would say something if it was so I'll go up there. Plus, I'm bulletproof".

Current day Roy would say "holy cow, its too damn windy for this, there is no way I'm going up there and I don't care what anyone says. Hey coach, I'm staying down here".

And its my life experiences that have taught me that.

Exactly, there are hundreds of other kids on the Notre Dame campus that want that job. Stepping out of line, would likely have cost him his job. Perhaps the kid wanted to go into coaching. Stepping on Brian Kelly's toes would likely have ended whatever chance he had at making that a career.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by LoganBuck

Exactly, there are hundreds of other kids on the Notre Dame campus that want that job. Stepping out of line, would likely have cost him his job. Perhaps the kid wanted to go into coaching. Stepping on Brian Kelly's toes would likely have ended whatever chance he had at making that a career.

The other thing about it is that being young makes it more difficult for people to truly understand the consequences of an action like going up in the lift.

The odds were that the lift would not tip over in the 50 MPH winds. It's not like because it's not supposed to be used in winds of more than 25MPH, that at 26MPH the lift automatically tips over.
If I go out in a lightning storm with my 3 iron held high over my head, the odds are that I'm NOT going to get struck by lightning.

It doesn't mean that it's a good idea though.

The reason why the lifts guidelines say 25 MPH, is that with winds above 25MPH, the likelihood of an accident happening are higher, and the cost of an accident is almost certainly to be devastating.

I think it's unfair to expect a 20 year old kid to truly understand the increased risk percentage he was putting himself in line for.

Think of it another way, if he did this very dangerous act on Wednesday night, and came out of it okay do you think the coach would have had any reason to second guess himself or keep himself from doing it again?

Do you think every coach in the country knows what wind their own tower lifts are to be used under now?

[jredmo2]

If Brutus' argument is to hold, it would essentially preclude any employer from punishment in any death due to workplace negligence.

The personal responsibility argument, in my opinion, has no place here. That line of reasoning would suggest that any employer could instruct his/her employees to do any degree of dangerous task and make it the employee's responsibility to sort out which tasks are too dangerous.

Moreover, it suggests that it is the employee's responsibility to disobey a dangerous order, rather than the employer's responsibility to refrain from making a dangerous order. Given that the employee (generally) depends on the employer for living wages, this is an unreasonable standard. Why? Because there is no incentive for the employer not to endanger his employees -- in fact, you could argue that there is a tremendous incentive for the employer to endanger his employees. The employer faces no recourse for making dangerous orders to his employees. Given that the dangerous task is often beneficial to the employer (as is extra practice film to a head football coach), the employer could simply hire and fire employees until he/she found one willing to absorb this now-strictly-personal safety risk in order to obtain the wages.

Also, the idea that blaming someone will not bring the student back is true, but a ridiculous sentiment. By this standard, since death is irreversible, nobody shall ever be held accountable for causing a death?

This is why I believe the personal responsibility argument here is a straw man argument -- and one that treads dangerously towards "blame the victim," if I may so editorialize.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by jredmo2

If Brutus' argument is to hold, it would essentially preclude any employer from punishment in any death due to workplace negligence.

A) That's a strawman

B) I haven't seen anything verbatim...but I'm guessing Brutus thinks ND has some sort of liability in this case. He'll respond soon enough.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by jredmo2

If Brutus' argument is to hold, it would essentially preclude any employer from punishment in any death due to workplace negligence.

The personal responsibility argument, in my opinion, has no place here. That line of reasoning would suggest that any employer could instruct his/her employees to do any degree of dangerous task and make it the employee's responsibility to sort out which tasks are too dangerous.

Wow, what a gross overstatement. I spend an entire thread stating my concern is that there's a difference between an expectation of conducting "business as usual" and actually demanding someone performs something dangerous, and you are spinning this into me saying there's to be no accountability by an employer.

Moreover, it suggests that it is the employee's responsibility to disobey a dangerous order, rather than the employer's responsibility to refrain from making a dangerous order. Given that the employee (generally) depends on the employer for living wages, this is an unreasonable standard. Why? Because there is no incentive for the employer not to endanger his employees -- in fact, you could argue that there is a tremendous incentive for the employer to endanger his employees. The employer faces no recourse for making dangerous orders to his employees. Given that the dangerous task is often beneficial to the employer (as is extra practice film to a head football coach), the employer could simply hire and fire employees until he/she found one willing to absorb this now-strictly-personal safety risk in order to obtain the wages.

But again, the employee in this situation didn't obey or disobey any order. He was carrying out a task that was done on a daily basis. He wasn't told to go up into the lift in 50 MPH winds. He didn't have to be told. It was just an expectation like any other day. As I said, "business as usual."

The issue is whether or not Notre Dame should have had the foresight to think about the safety risk. From a legal standpoint, there's not going to be much disputing they should.

What I'm suggesting, though, is this wasn't a case where anyone needed to disobey an order. There wasn't an 'order' to disobey. I'm saying that there needs to be accountability on a personal level to COMMUNICATE with an employer when they feel something in the job description is unsafe. There wasn't any communication here. Perhaps there would have been things done a lot differently on all sides if there was communication--which is a two way street.

Also, the idea that blaming someone will not bring the student back is true, but a ridiculous sentiment. By this standard, since death is irreversible, nobody shall ever be held accountable for causing a death?

This is why I believe the personal responsibility argument here is a straw man argument -- and one that treads dangerously towards "blame the victim," if I may so editorialize.

What's ridiculous is that, whether or not it happens regularly, we as individuals can't be expected to act in the interests of our own safety. I don't disagree that most kids his age wouldn't speak up. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't. If we feel our safety is at risk, and we don't speak up, it's hard to place all the blame on someone else.

The only strawman argument here is the idea that we can't say the employer and employee both erred in judgment. It doesn't have to be one or the other. And it doesn't have to be total blame in order to find legal culpability.

It's silly of any of us to want total accountability in our employers. Shouldn't we look after ourselves? Especially when it's not even a direct order. It's not like this kid was told to risk his life. That wasn't the case. He simply didn't speak up on something he knew was unsafe.

Regardless of how often it happens, it's not irrational to expect anyone, any of us, to speak up if we feel something we're doing on the job is unsafe. I don't see why that's such a hard concept to grasp.

That has nothing to do with whether or not the employer made a mistake. Believe it or not, more than one person can be at fault. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I don't understand why we feel we need to say someone is 100% to blame. Why can't there be fault to go around? Why does accountability have to rest in one direction? It's not a zero sum game.

[Revering4Blue]

ND president: School responsible in student death

“Declan Sullivan was entrusted to our care, and we failed to keep him safe,” the Rev. John Jenkins wrote. “We at Notre Dame and ultimately I, as President are responsible.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...edame-accident

[Redsfan320]

“Declan Sullivan was entrusted to our care, and we failed to keep him safe,” the Rev. John Jenkins wrote. “We at Notre Dame and ultimately I, as President are responsible.

Good for him to man up!!

320

[paintmered]

Originally Posted by Redsfan320

Good for him to man up!!

320

Well...yeah, I guess. The cynic in me says that ND's team of lawyers looked at the situation, realized there's no way they couldn't be held liable, and now the university is trying to take the high road as PR damage control.

This would have been much more impressive had this happened the day after this tragedy.

[paintmered]

Interesting...

http://www.examiner.com/notre-dame-f...sked-to-resign

According to sources, a group of influential boosters to the University of Notre Dame recently met with Irish head football coach Brian Kelly and athletic director Jack Swarbrick and asked both men to resign their positions following the tragic death of ND student Declan Sullivan. Sullivan was killed when the scissor lift he was on blew over while he was filming football practice on October 27th. Both men declined to do so during the contentious meeting.

[Dom Heffner]

Mel Gibson isn't fully to blame and this kid is partially to blame.

I think what we have here is someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

The argument seems to be people are looking for someone to blame, he agrees that ND is at fault, but we have about 5 thread pages where it's okay for him to blame (albeit partially) a 20 year old employee for his own demise.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

Mel Gibson isn't fully to blame and this kid is partially to blame.

I think what we have here is someone who likes to argue for the sake of arguing.

The argument seems to be people are looking for someone to blame, he agrees that ND is at fault, but we have about 5 thread pages where it's okay for him to blame (albeit partially) a 20 year old employee for his own demise.

Take it private. You got an issue, bring it to me. No reason for this.

To say someone doesn't share partial responsibility for ignoring their own common sense is silly to me and I stand by that. As an 'employer', I wouldn't want to invite employees that are incapable of ignoring what they believe to be risks just as an employee I'd expect an employer to take steps to insure my safety for things beyond my control.

[Reds4Life]

Originally Posted by paintmered

Interesting...

If the boosters want them both gone.....they will both be gone. Notre Dame isn't a place where you can take on the boosters and win. They write the checks and pay the bills for that place.