Minnesota Mock Trial 2009 - 2010

Minnesota Mock Trial

2009 - 2010Kelly Anderson v. Dale Rockford and

John Reilly High School

The Essentials of the CaseI. 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. Procedure2. Facts3. Law4. Witnesses5. Theme

Introduction to the Facts and the Law:Meet the

WitnessesPlaintiff’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 Definition: any conduct that creates an

unreasonable risk of harm to others.

1. Duty2. Breach of Duty3. Causation4. 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 Negligencea 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 NegligenceThe 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 NegligenceReturn 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 NegligenceSpecial Legal Considerations

John Reilly High School Employer Sponsor of the Athletic Program

Jordan Anderson 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 responsibility50% rule

A Closer Examination of the EvidenceDefendants’ Witnesses

Dale Rockford1. Character2. Circumstances3. Actions


Jamie Hagar1. Character2. Circumstances3. Actions plus: What was John Reilly High School’s

role in events?


Adrian Brady1. Credentials2. Foundation for Analysis3. Expert Conclusions plus: What are the weaknesses in

Plaintiff’s case?

A Closer Examination of the EvidencePlaintiff’s Witnesses

Kelly Anderson1. Character2. Circumstances3. Actions

Compare and contrast Anderson’s role as parent against Rockford’s role as coach.


Parker Vang

Just corroborative evidence,

or more?


Lynn Garcia, Ph.D1. Credentials2. Foundation for Analysis3. 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 EvidenceExhibits

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 EvidenceExhibits

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?

Documents

Minnesota Mock Trial 2009 - 2010