Comments on: Judge Defers Final Ruling in ESD Case http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/2011/11/10/judge-defers-final-ruling-in-esd-case/ Also Serving Bluffview, Devonshire, and Greenway Parks Thu, 17 May 2012 18:36:44 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Claire St. Amant http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/2011/11/10/judge-defers-final-ruling-in-esd-case/comment-page-1/#comment-91603 Claire St. Amant Fri, 09 Dec 2011 17:09:01 +0000 http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/?p=9466#comment-91603 @Anxious Spectator, It is true. Check out my latest blog post for more details. @Anxious Spectator, It is true. Check out my latest blog post for more details.

]]> By: Anxious Spectator http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/2011/11/10/judge-defers-final-ruling-in-esd-case/comment-page-1/#comment-91265 Anxious Spectator Thu, 08 Dec 2011 22:25:38 +0000 http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/?p=9466#comment-91265 Claire, is it true that the sanctions hearings will resume on Thursday, Dec. 15? We would all like to know when they will resume. I remember you said earlier likely before the end of the year. Thanks. Claire, is it true that the sanctions hearings will resume on Thursday, Dec. 15? We would all like to know when they will resume. I remember you said earlier likely before the end of the year.
Thanks.

]]> By: interested observer http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/2011/11/10/judge-defers-final-ruling-in-esd-case/comment-page-1/#comment-85152 interested observer Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:02:51 +0000 http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/?p=9466#comment-85152 Walnut Hill: I have yet to label anyone's comments "crap." Disagree, but disagree respectfully, please. Here are some facts I gleaned from ESD's Motion for Judgment NOV. 1. Jury refused to find that ESD caused the inappropriate relationship between Doe II and Campbell. (Page 3, ESD’s motion for Judgment NOV, citing the jury's answer to question 1) If chain of causation is broken, there can be no negligence and no damages,as a matter of law. (2) Relationship between school and student is contractual in nature. Right to sever relationship is "at will" in nature. Therefore there is no duty to refrain from separating student. (3)Any mental anguish is negligent infliction of emotional distress, rejected by Supreme Court years ago. This is not a frivolous defense. It is credible. The law is the law, and it protects us from kneejerk emotional judgment calls on the part of runaway juries and the masses in general whose emotions are inflamed by media coverage. Walnut Hill:

I have yet to label anyone’s comments “crap.” Disagree, but disagree respectfully, please.

Here are some facts I gleaned from ESD’s Motion for Judgment NOV.

1. Jury refused to find that ESD caused the inappropriate relationship between Doe II and Campbell. (Page 3, ESD’s motion for Judgment NOV, citing the jury’s answer to question 1) If chain of causation is broken, there can be no negligence and no damages,as a matter of law.

(2) Relationship between school and student is contractual in nature. Right to sever relationship is “at will” in nature. Therefore there is no duty to refrain from separating student.

(3)Any mental anguish is negligent infliction of emotional distress, rejected by Supreme Court years ago.

This is not a frivolous defense. It is credible. The law is the law, and it protects us from kneejerk emotional judgment calls on the part of runaway juries and the masses in general whose emotions are inflamed by media coverage.

]]> By: AuntieCairo http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/2011/11/10/judge-defers-final-ruling-in-esd-case/comment-page-1/#comment-84882 AuntieCairo Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:31:08 +0000 http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/?p=9466#comment-84882 I guess it was inevitable some would try to compare this case to Penn State - even though they are vastly different. Most notably - the age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16 - so this case would not exist in Texas. Considering Jane Doe's parents and attys have stated they didn't want to put JD through another trial - it's odd they keep going to Court and dragging this stuff up -- money has to be the only motivation at this point. By not going after Campbell full force it's clearly not justice. And it's not unusual to have alot of attys because of specialization -I can assure you Jane Doe's team consisted of multiple attorneys and experts. I understand the updates on the story - but I don't understand the harsh feelings on both sides - except I suspect there are still "plants" on both sides of the issue. I think there's a second story here somewhere. . . I guess it was inevitable some would try to compare this case to Penn State – even though they are vastly different. Most notably – the age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16 – so this case would not exist in Texas. Considering Jane Doe’s parents and attys have stated they didn’t want to put JD through another trial – it’s odd they keep going to Court and dragging this stuff up — money has to be the only motivation at this point. By not going after Campbell full force it’s clearly not justice. And it’s not unusual to have alot of attys because of specialization -I can assure you Jane Doe’s team consisted of multiple attorneys and experts. I understand the updates on the story – but I don’t understand the harsh feelings on both sides – except I suspect there are still “plants” on both sides of the issue. I think there’s a second story here somewhere. . .

]]> By: Mothe of Alum http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/2011/11/10/judge-defers-final-ruling-in-esd-case/comment-page-1/#comment-84132 Mothe of Alum Sat, 19 Nov 2011 13:21:32 +0000 http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/?p=9466#comment-84132 Chris Rock, after the OJ Simpson murder trial, joked that whenever attorney Johnny Cochran was brought in for a case, the defendant was "guilty, guilty, guilty". So how do we think 15 lawyers brought into court for the ESD defense appears? DESPARATE as well as "guilty, guilty, guilty". I'm having a hard time understanding why a firm like Haynes and Boone would want to sully their hands by association with this case. Of course the fees and hundreds of yummy billable hours pay the rent, but are times really that tough? Chris Rock, after the OJ Simpson murder trial, joked that whenever attorney Johnny Cochran was brought in for a case, the defendant was “guilty, guilty, guilty”. So how do we think 15 lawyers brought into court for the ESD defense appears? DESPARATE as well as “guilty, guilty, guilty”. I’m having a hard time understanding why a firm like Haynes and Boone would want to sully their hands by association with this case. Of course the fees and hundreds of yummy billable hours pay the rent, but are times really that tough?

]]> By: Walnut Hill http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/2011/11/10/judge-defers-final-ruling-in-esd-case/comment-page-1/#comment-84011 Walnut Hill Sat, 19 Nov 2011 00:39:38 +0000 http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/?p=9466#comment-84011 @Interested Observer - the "general consensus" is uninformed. The jury found ESD negligent for its actions prior to the assault, negligent for some of its actions after the assault but before the withdrawal, grossly negligent for some of its actions after the assault but before the withdrawal, and grossly negligent for its actions at the instant of the withdrawal. The jury further found ESD to have breached its fiduciary duty and to have committed fraud, the fraud being "misrepresentation" which equates to fraudulent concealment/inducement. Assuming ordinary contract rules apply as you suggest, the jury in fact did find ESD did not exercise due care throughout the unfortunate sequence of events, hence their finding that the harm to JDII resulted from gross negligence. The technical analysis notwithstanding, @Amanda has it right. @Interested Observer – the “general consensus” is uninformed. The jury found ESD negligent for its actions prior to the assault, negligent for some of its actions after the assault but before the withdrawal, grossly negligent for some of its actions after the assault but before the withdrawal, and grossly negligent for its actions at the instant of the withdrawal. The jury further found ESD to have breached its fiduciary duty and to have committed fraud, the fraud being “misrepresentation” which equates to fraudulent concealment/inducement. Assuming ordinary contract rules apply as you suggest, the jury in fact did find ESD did not exercise due care throughout the unfortunate sequence of events, hence their finding that the harm to JDII resulted from gross negligence.

The technical analysis notwithstanding, @Amanda has it right.

]]> By: BigTenFan http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/2011/11/10/judge-defers-final-ruling-in-esd-case/comment-page-1/#comment-83599 BigTenFan Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:45:11 +0000 http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/?p=9466#comment-83599 JoePa and Rev.Swann, eerily similar... just substitute Rev.Swann wherever you see Joe Paterno and ESD for Penn State. From Jack Bechta - National Football Post - player agent and Pennsylvania native. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Did-Joe-Pa-have-too-much-power.html JoePa and Rev.Swann, eerily similar… just substitute Rev.Swann wherever you see Joe Paterno and ESD for Penn State.

From Jack Bechta – National Football Post – player agent and Pennsylvania native.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Did-Joe-Pa-have-too-much-power.html

]]> By: amanda http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/2011/11/10/judge-defers-final-ruling-in-esd-case/comment-page-1/#comment-83489 amanda Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:10:23 +0000 http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/?p=9466#comment-83489 Maybe ESD should stop skating down a technical line, and start acting in a Biblical manner? I think that defining this situation as a mere contract is completely bogus. The relationship wasn't contractual. The teacher used school property to carry out his sick intentions. Either parents have the understood ability to believe that the school won't contribute to a molestation or not. I think what the jury said was that the parents should be able to expect that the school isn't contributing on any level. As the case moves forward...what we'll see is another jury and judge horrified by ESD"s actions. And, we'll see more arrogance. Burrows backfired, and the attempt to explain away all of this by current admin and faculty was solidly rejected. Maybe ESD should stop skating down a technical line, and start acting in a Biblical manner?

I think that defining this situation as a mere contract is completely bogus. The relationship wasn’t contractual. The teacher used school property to carry out his sick intentions. Either parents have the understood ability to believe that the school won’t contribute to a molestation or not. I think what the jury said was that the parents should be able to expect that the school isn’t contributing on any level.

As the case moves forward…what we’ll see is another jury and judge horrified by ESD”s actions. And, we’ll see more arrogance. Burrows backfired, and the attempt to explain away all of this by current admin and faculty was solidly rejected.

]]> By: *breaking news* http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/2011/11/10/judge-defers-final-ruling-in-esd-case/comment-page-1/#comment-83326 *breaking news* Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:33:22 +0000 http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/?p=9466#comment-83326 IO...the relationshiop between a minor and teacher is not "at will." Employment law does not apply. It's abuse. Rape, by statute, and even if the student was 18, still a crime in Texas. Get your "facts" straight before posting more crap on this thread. ESD supporters looks like real creeps. IO…the relationshiop between a minor and teacher is not “at will.” Employment law does not apply. It’s abuse. Rape, by statute, and even if the student was 18, still a crime in Texas.

Get your “facts” straight before posting more crap on this thread.

ESD supporters looks like real creeps.

]]> By: interested observer http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/2011/11/10/judge-defers-final-ruling-in-esd-case/comment-page-1/#comment-83203 interested observer Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:25:56 +0000 http://www.prestonhollowpeople.com/?p=9466#comment-83203 Walnut Hill: I stand corrected. I have relied on media reports that reported that the jury failed to find ESD was negligent in protecting Jane Doe II and other students. I've looked for the jury's answers themselves on line and I haven't found them. The general consensus among commenters here, though, is that the jury found the manner in which Jane Doe II was discharged to be grossly negligent, and it was in connection with that answer that punitive damages were awarded. The problem I have is that, in order for there to be gross negligence, there must first be simple negligence. That is, there has to be a legal duty first, and there must be a breach of that duty. Once we reach that part of the question, we ask whether the breach of that duty was so lacking in due care as to be reckless, or without regard to the safety of an injured victim. It would be more than momentary thoughtlessness or inattention. It would be callous. So, I go back to the facts. If the relationship between a student and a private school is an at-will relationship and where the administration has the right to exercise its discretion at will, where is the duty to keep a child enrolled for any length of time? If the relationship is contractual in nature, why don't ordinary contract rules govern the question of damages? How do we go from a simple breach of contract case to negligence? It is a real problem, and I hope to learn the answer as this matter moves forward. Walnut Hill: I stand corrected. I have relied on media reports that reported that the jury failed to find ESD was negligent in protecting Jane Doe II and other students. I’ve looked for the jury’s answers themselves on line and I haven’t found them. The general consensus among commenters here, though, is that the jury found the manner in which Jane Doe II was discharged to be grossly negligent, and it was in connection with that answer that punitive damages were awarded.

The problem I have is that, in order for there to be gross negligence, there must first be simple negligence. That is, there has to be a legal duty first, and there must be a breach of that duty. Once we reach that part of the question, we ask whether the breach of that duty was so lacking in due care as to be reckless, or without regard to the safety of an injured victim. It would be more than momentary thoughtlessness or inattention. It would be callous.

So, I go back to the facts. If the relationship between a student and a private school is an at-will relationship and where the administration has the right to exercise its discretion at will, where is the duty to keep a child enrolled for any length of time? If the relationship is contractual in nature, why don’t ordinary contract rules govern the question of damages? How do we go from a simple breach of contract case to negligence? It is a real problem, and I hope to learn the answer as this matter moves forward.

]]>