UCF Trial on the death of Planchard

[commbull]

You used the word moral, not me.   This trial had all the markings for a huge punitive victory and they got Nothing.  Was there neglict?  Yes.  This was a very sad accidental death that happened to a fine young man.  But the jury not allowing a punitive award shows that it was just that..an accident.

Maybe the slime ball attorney should have sued the NCAA instead of UCFAA, since the guidelines in place were written by the NCAA.

If it were merely a "sad accidental death," there would be no award to the family at all.  The award--at least as I understand the situation and the law--is because they found UCF/UCFAA negligent.  That's NEGLIGENT, which means pretty much the opposite of accidental.

[GaUSFBull]

That's NEGLIGENT, which means pretty much the opposite of accidental.

Wrong.  Negligent means failure to use due care.  The opposite of accidental is intentional. 

[Triple B]

That's NEGLIGENT, which means pretty much the opposite of accidental.

Wrong.  Negligent means failure to use due care.  The opposite of accidental is intentional. 

Agree completely with that ... Definitely not intentional, but I have a problem with calling it an accident, either. Negligent kind of falls in the middle ... not something done on purpose but also not some random set of circumstances that caused the death, either.

[gobulls83]

That's NEGLIGENT, which means pretty much the opposite of accidental.

Wrong.  Negligent means failure to use due care.  The opposite of accidental is intentional. 

Agree completely with that ... Definitely not intentional, but I have a problem with calling it an accident, either. Negligent kind of falls in the middle ... not something done on purpose but also not some random set of circumstances that caused the death, either.

Exactly. UCF was the defendant in a wrongful death lawsuit. UCF lost the lawsuit and has to pay damages. Any argument that at all implies that this verdict cleared UCF or did not pin at least some of the responsibility for the player's death on UCF is faulty right from the start. It makes no sense at all.

It's not murder, but it also wasn't an accident.

[Bullpride08]

thank goodness for the civil justice system and personal injury lawyers

david beat goliath yesterday

I am not sure it is reversed.  Look at the law firm representing the Planchers.  http://www.yerridlaw.com/

I would be willing to think he is worth alot more than the 30 million UCFAA brings in revenue.

Here is my question to the forum.

You are offered 2million to settle.  No attorneys cost and payment immediately.  You say no on the advise of of an attorney who thinks yoiu can gets alot more.  3 years later you are awarded 10 million which 4 million goes to the attorney and you are going to get appealed, which means you have not and will not receive one penny for what may be many many years from now.

Should you have taken the 2 mill 3 years ago?

Where do you get your facts?  From the UCF internet cafe of spin journalism?

First, by court documents the only side that offered a settlement offer-- through the courts so we don't want to hear about some hearsay UCF BS-- was the plaintiff that offered a $4.5M offer through the court and judge before the trial, about 8 months ago.  UCFAA never even responded.

Second, in this case the actual bill is $10M PLUS $2M for Yerrid's fees.  AND the insurance only pays 125% ABOVE the max settlement and does not cover attorney costs if the defendant decided to go to trial and rejects the settlement offer-- this prevents defendants from going to trial without a care, clogging the system, believing what do they have to care about because it's only insurance money.  THESE ARE FL INSURANCE LAWS, so before you go giving me a UCF website spin look it up on the Fl.gov insurance commissioners rules and regulations.  So for the mathematically challenged that means UCFAA must pay 100% of the costs above $5.76M, that's nearly $6M, which is why they're appealing.

However I do not know why they're appealing.  Trying to argue a congentative heart disease is even more paltry.  But here's another fact you ignorant UCF fans fail to rationalize.  UCF is only appealing probably because they need time to put the funds together.  Appellate Courts do not re-try a case.  They look at the judgement, and the facts, as they were presented, to insure that the judgement suited the issue.  The judgement in this case was very fair for the defendant, in fact, I am shocked there was not punitive damages particularly when the attending trainer at the fateful workout didn't even know Plancher had SCT- HUH~?~  After hearing that it is impossible to believe the UCF trainer told Ereck he had SCT and failed to write it down....BS because no one else knew.

The point is when the appellate court reads those statements there will be little doubt they will concur with the judgement and move the case along.  This could happen in under a year.  Some of you saying this will get tied up in years of appeals are watching to much 48 Hours...this is a civil case, the plaintiff's do not have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt'...just 'doubt' which is enough (remember Nicole Brown's family won civil against OJ, but the state lost criminal) and therefore appellate courts are careful to not over burden the system when there is limits, and it only has to be reasonably assumed.  The only area this could fall into a reversal is if the appeals court decided the case was handled wrong by the judge---  there could be some argument because it was such an unorthodoxed case, however both sides have arguments.

The fact is this should be settled in a year, and UCF will be left carry quite a bit of the liability for the settlement, and Yerrid is taking a set fee because he did not win punitive damages.

[Bullpride08]

It will be reversed on appeal and the greedy money grab undermines the sincerity of the Plancher family.

Reversal based on what?  What do you believe the appellate courts will find to order a reversal.  In a civil trial the evidence for a reversal needs to be overwhelming, you're watching to much court tv and thinking this is criminal.  In criminal where 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' must be proven reversals happen a lot, in civil there just needs to show that the plaintiff's case and evidence support the judgement.  The judgement was a reasonable one- not something ridiculous like a $100M ruling-- which could have been reversed, and the plaintiff presented a reasonable case-- that UCF knew about Ereck's ailment and did nothing about it.  He stayed away from trying to win based on a 'he said v. he said' battle on whether water and trainers were available.  It was thrown out there to show the level of work-out, but not the basis of the plaintiff's argument.  The basis was the autopsy, and the trainers lack of knowledge and proper care.  The rest was just smoke and mirrors and the appellate court will see that.

Considering there was no punitive judgement I have a trouble believing the appellate court will find for a reversal when there was clear cut evidence UCF was negligent....unless you believe not telling a person of a genetic ailment, not telling trainers the kid had it, not even putting some type of monitoring efforts in place....is not negligent.  Your trainers admitted to this on the stand.  Negligent.  Your argument of a heart ailment is a fail! 

The trainer on staff that day admitted he did not know Plancher had SCT in court.  He admitted had he known he would have watched and viewed Plancher's actions during the workout differently.  Another trainer claims to remember telling Ereck about him having SCT, but never writting it down.  Something that is taught the first day of medical school ALWAYS WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!  How often do you go to your local physician and they don't have notes from all your previous visits.  Telling someone they have genetic ailment that they will need to monitor their entire life is kinda of a game changing counseling session.  This isn't someone sitting you down for a headache and subscribing Advil.  Telling a player he has this, an ailment that he'll need to know he has his entire life, one that he'll need to tell his future wife before they attempt to have children, one that may make him want to stop playing football....something so important and UCF 'forgets to write it down'?!?!?!?  Jeez I went to a local walk-in clinic about 2 months and hadn't been there for 5 years and they still have my file and all the information from my last visit....UCF doesn't have a paid physician on staff, and it sounds like trainers were just writing stuff on post-it notes and forgetting them everywhere.

Yeah champ, hearing those two testimonies will be all the appellate court needs to hear.  Throwing around 'heart ailments' for reasonable doubt isn't relevant in a civil trial.  All the appellate cares about in civils is if the judgement fits the case, and if the version the jury sided with was presented properly and provided a reasonable evidentary case.  Yerrid did that and UCF should be writing a check within a year.

[Triple B]

It will be reversed on appeal and the greedy money grab undermines the sincerity of the Plancher family.

Reversal based on what?  What do you believe the appellate courts will find to order a reversal.  In a civil trial the evidence for a reversal needs to be overwhelming, you're watching to much court tv and thinking this is criminal.  In criminal where 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' must be proven reversals happen a lot, in civil there just needs to show that the plaintiff's case and evidence support the judgement.   The judgement was a reasonable one- not something ridiculous like a $100M ruling-- which could have been reversed, and the plaintiff presented a reasonable case-- that UCF knew about Ereck's ailment and did nothing about it.  He stayed away from trying to win based on a 'he said v. he said' battle on whether water and trainers were available.  It was thrown out there to show the level of work-out, but not the basis of the plaintiff's argument.  The basis was the autopsy, and the trainers lack of knowledge and proper care.  The rest was just smoke and mirrors and the appellate court will see that.

Considering there was no punitive judgement I have a trouble believing the appellate court will find for a reversal when there was clear cut evidence UCF was negligent....unless you believe not telling a person of a genetic ailment, not telling trainers the kid had it, not even putting some type of monitoring efforts in place....is not negligent.  Your trainers admitted to this on the stand.  Negligent.  Your argument of a heart ailment is a fail! 

The trainer on staff that day admitted he did not know Plancher had SCT in court.  He admitted had he known he would have watched and viewed Plancher's actions during the workout differently.  Another trainer claims to remember telling Ereck about him having SCT, but never writting it down.  Something that is taught the first day of medical school ALWAYS WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!  How often do you go to your local physician and they don't have notes from all your previous visits.  Telling someone they have genetic ailment that they will need to monitor their entire life is kinda of a game changing counseling session.  This isn't someone sitting you down for a headache and subscribing Advil.  Telling a player he has this, an ailment that he'll need to know he has his entire life, one that he'll need to tell his future wife before they attempt to have children, one that may make him want to stop playing football....something so important and UCF 'forgets to write it down'?!?!?!?  Jeez I went to a local walk-in clinic about 2 months and hadn't been there for 5 years and they still have my file and all the information from my last visit....UCF doesn't have a paid physician on staff, and it sounds like trainers were just writing stuff on post-it notes and forgetting them everywhere.

Yeah champ, hearing those two testimonies will be all the appellate court needs to hear.  Throwing around 'heart ailments' for reasonable doubt isn't relevant in a civil trial.  All the appellate cares about in civils is if the judgement fits the case, and if the version the jury sided with was presented properly and provided a reasonable evidentary case.  Yerrid did that and UCF should be writing a check within a year.

Just a word to the wise, Pride .... That was WAY too much typing for a response to Chad. 

[Bull Martin]

I was banned from the UCF scout forum just before the final USF-UCF game for writing that George O'Leary killed one of his players in some sort of refute.  I guess I was right and shouldn't have been banned.

[Rizman]

I was banned from the UCF scout forum just before the final USF-UCF game for writing that George O'Leary killed one of his players in some sort of refute.  I guess I was right and shouldn't have been banned.

I was banned whenr a guy who called me a foul word, I responded back in kind.  They hate USF because we passed them by and it drives them nuts.  Our Athletic department out maneuvered them and they know they got burned.  Plus, the 4-0 in football is like salt in the wound.

[BDYZR]

It will be reversed on appeal and the greedy money grab undermines the sincerity of the Plancher family.

Reversal based on what?  What do you believe the appellate courts will find to order a reversal.  In a civil trial the evidence for a reversal needs to be overwhelming, you're watching to much court tv and thinking this is criminal.  In criminal where 'beyond the shadow of a doubt' must be proven reversals happen a lot, in civil there just needs to show that the plaintiff's case and evidence support the judgement.   The judgement was a reasonable one- not something ridiculous like a $100M ruling-- which could have been reversed, and the plaintiff presented a reasonable case-- that UCF knew about Ereck's ailment and did nothing about it.  He stayed away from trying to win based on a 'he said v. he said' battle on whether water and trainers were available.  It was thrown out there to show the level of work-out, but not the basis of the plaintiff's argument.  The basis was the autopsy, and the trainers lack of knowledge and proper care.  The rest was just smoke and mirrors and the appellate court will see that.

Considering there was no punitive judgement I have a trouble believing the appellate court will find for a reversal when there was clear cut evidence UCF was negligent....unless you believe not telling a person of a genetic ailment, not telling trainers the kid had it, not even putting some type of monitoring efforts in place....is not negligent.  Your trainers admitted to this on the stand.  Negligent.  Your argument of a heart ailment is a fail! 

The trainer on staff that day admitted he did not know Plancher had SCT in court.  He admitted had he known he would have watched and viewed Plancher's actions during the workout differently.  Another trainer claims to remember telling Ereck about him having SCT, but never writting it down.  Something that is taught the first day of medical school ALWAYS WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!  How often do you go to your local physician and they don't have notes from all your previous visits.  Telling someone they have genetic ailment that they will need to monitor their entire life is kinda of a game changing counseling session.  This isn't someone sitting you down for a headache and subscribing Advil.  Telling a player he has this, an ailment that he'll need to know he has his entire life, one that he'll need to tell his future wife before they attempt to have children, one that may make him want to stop playing football....something so important and UCF 'forgets to write it down'?!?!?!?  Jeez I went to a local walk-in clinic about 2 months and hadn't been there for 5 years and they still have my file and all the information from my last visit....UCF doesn't have a paid physician on staff, and it sounds like trainers were just writing stuff on post-it notes and forgetting them everywhere.

Yeah champ, hearing those two testimonies will be all the appellate court needs to hear.  Throwing around 'heart ailments' for reasonable doubt isn't relevant in a civil trial.  All the appellate cares about in civils is if the judgement fits the case, and if the version the jury sided with was presented properly and provided a reasonable evidentary case.  Yerrid did that and UCF should be writing a check within a year.

Just a word to the wise, Pride .... That was WAY too much typing for a response to Chad. 

But, this BULLS fan really appreciates the explanation/education.

Thanks BulllPride08