Transcript Minnesota Mock Trial 2009

Minnesota Mock
Trial
2009 - 2010
Kelly Anderson v. Dale Rockford and
John Reilly High School
The Essentials of the Case
I.
Guide to the Case Materials
II.
Introduction to the Facts and the Law
III.
A Closer Examination of the Evidence
Guide to the Case Materials:
Getting Started
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Procedure
Facts
Law
Witnesses
Theme
Introduction to the Facts and the Law:
Meet the Witnesses
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:
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.
Introduction to the Facts and the Law:
The Theory of Negligence
Negligence

1.
2.
3.
4.
Definition: any conduct that creates an
unreasonable risk of harm to others.
Duty
Breach of Duty
Causation
Harm
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.
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.
Applying the Theory of Negligence
Who is at fault?
Applying the Theory of Negligence
a 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 ___________
Applying the Theory of Negligence
The Case for Dale Rockford
1.
Were Dale Rockford’s acts or omissions
reasonable?
2.
Did these acts or omissions cause Jordan
Anderson’s death?
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 __________
Applying the Theory of Negligence
Special Legal Considerations

John Reilly High School



Jordan Anderson


Employer
Sponsor of the Athletic Program
A Minor
Contributory negligence
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
A Closer Examination of the Evidence
Defendants’ Witnesses
Dale Rockford
1. Character
2. Circumstances
3. Actions
A Closer Examination of the Evidence
Defendants’ Witnesses
Jamie Hagar
1. Character
2. Circumstances
3. Actions
 plus: What was John Reilly High School’s
role in events?
A Closer Examination of the Evidence
Defendants’ Witnesses
Adrian Brady
1. Credentials
2. Foundation for Analysis
3. Expert Conclusions
 plus: What are the weaknesses in
Plaintiff’s case?
A Closer Examination of the Evidence
Plaintiff’s Witnesses
Kelly Anderson
1. Character
2. Circumstances
3. Actions
Compare and contrast Anderson’s role as
parent against Rockford’s role as coach.
A Closer Examination of the Evidence
Plaintiff’s Witnesses
Parker Vang
Just corroborative evidence,
or more?
A Closer Examination of the Evidence
Plaintiff’s Witnesses
Lynn Garcia, Ph.D
1. Credentials
2. Foundation for Analysis
3. 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?
A Closer Examination of the Evidence
Exhibits






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
A Closer Examination of the Evidence
Exhibits







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”
Kelly Anderson v. Dale Rockford and
John Reilly High School
In conclusion:
How many wrongs add up to responsibility?