Started By
Message
re: Simple question: why don't these 6 women sue the alleged people instead of UT?
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:31 pm to Scoreboard
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:31 pm to Scoreboard
If you get punched by a random store employee somewhere which would you sue, the store or the employee? Ok then
1
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:31 pm to Wishnitwas1998
As has been mentioned, always follow the money when looking at law suits.
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:35 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Because UT has created a culture of sexual assault they want change. Instead of trying to discredit the victims maybe you should question the administration that has allowed this to happen
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:37 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
If administrators at UT tried to cover up or encourage bad behavior the school with get hammered.
As they should, but I don't believe anything was "covered up". All of the plaintiffs are alleged victims of well known sexual assault cases. Once sexual assault allegations reach the press, there's nothing the University can do to cover it up.
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:39 pm to Mansa Musa
Respondeat Superior doesn't apply to intentional torts outside the scope of employment.
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:40 pm to rockytop627
quote:
We don't even know that the major case under investigation even happened but if it did, those specific people are totally to blame, not the university. UT hasn't fostered any kind of rape culture, it just happens to be the location where allegedly stuff happened, that could've happened anywhere. Butch and our athletic dept. has clearly shown a zero tolerance policy for any form of sexual abuse or assault, kicking players off just for being accused (not arrested or convicted, mind you). But of course, like has been previously stated, the suit is directed and UT because it's a money grab and that's where the money is.
Already been established.
If UT didn't do anything wrong then they have nothing to worry about and defensive threads like this should go away.
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:41 pm to Volatile
quote:
Respondeat Superior doesn't apply to intentional torts outside the scope of employment.
correct. but what is being alleged happened within the scope of employment for UT personnel
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:42 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
In the lawsuit, they actually try to blame "Third Down for What" for fostering a "rape culture".
oh, that part of the lawsuit definitely made me laugh
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:44 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Man, your fandom is blinding you. This is about how it was handled by UT, not just the actual crimes themselves.
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:46 pm to lsufball19
Yes, but I think under a Title IX claim they wouldn't have a snowball's chance at trial unless there's actual evidence of cover ups etc.
It's not about what you allege. It's about what you can prove.
It's not about what you allege. It's about what you can prove.
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:51 pm to Volatile
quote:
Yes, but I think under a Title IX claim they wouldn't have a snowball's chance at trial unless there's actual evidence of cover ups etc.
It's not about what you allege. It's about what you can prove.
good lord. if there's no evidence to support the claim, then the court will dismiss the lawsuit. just because you haven't read anything online to support these claims, that does not mean the court isn't going to review the evidence presented to it and make a determination. if they think there's enough evidence that a jury could find fault, then it will go to trial. if it doesn't think there is enough evidence, then the lawsuit will be dismissed.
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:51 pm to Vols&Shaft83
quote:
As they should, but I don't believe anything was "covered up".
Maybe, that is what discovery is for.
If one person did something, they are in the wrong. If more than one person colluded to do something, UT is in the wrong.
We have courts for this reason.
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:56 pm to lsufball19
You realize that the lawsuit has just been filed? No answer has been filed yet.
No discovery has been done. No motions of any kind have been heard.
It'll be a few months before summary judgment is an option.
No discovery has been done. No motions of any kind have been heard.
It'll be a few months before summary judgment is an option.
Posted on 2/23/16 at 12:57 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Who's got more money?
Posted on 2/23/16 at 1:00 pm to Volatile
quote:
Yes, but I think under a Title IX claim they wouldn't have a snowball's chance at trial unless there's actual evidence of cover ups etc.
You don't need a coverup to have a Title IX issue. If you simply failed to effectively carry out your obligation, then you'll likely lose a lawsuit. Willful disregard is more than enough to land a school in hot water.
Posted on 2/23/16 at 1:03 pm to Volatile
quote:
You realize that the lawsuit has just been filed? No answer has been filed yet.
No discovery has been done. No motions of any kind have been heard.
It'll be a few months before summary judgment is an option.
no shite?
Posted on 2/23/16 at 1:03 pm to bamawriter
Regardless to whether or not UT is in the wrong here, thus suit WILL be settled
Discovery/answer will all just be posturing on what that final number will be
Discovery/answer will all just be posturing on what that final number will be
Posted on 2/23/16 at 1:05 pm to Wishnitwas1998
quote:
Regardless to whether or not UT is in the wrong here, thus suit WILL be settled
of course it will be settled, regardless of whether UT is in the wrong.
Posted on 2/23/16 at 1:18 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Simple answer: Parents send their children and pay good money in hopes it's a safe environment. The coaching staff, which is highly paid, is recruiting thugs with bad character. UT is getting a bad rep.
Posted on 2/23/16 at 1:22 pm to Wishnitwas1998
Same reason Remington is being sued in the shooting case.
When will people start suing Ford for drunk drivers?
When will people start suing Ford for drunk drivers?
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News