1 hour ago, theguru said:

His knee must be fine then.

Not good enough for 1st place, but 2nd isn't bad for all the pain and suffering he's experiencing. 

Per Nate Bryan in the Twitterverse, Franklin County appears to be the first program to issue a cut and dry "sidelines are completely closed to spectators" policy.

From their statement: "The only people who will be allowed field access are those with a sideline pass. There are NO EXCEPTIONS and passes will only be issued to essential members of our team and support personnel."

Reading through the rest of the statement, there is no specific mention of media members/press, and since they certainly wouldn't be considered as essential members of the team and support personnel, I take that statement to say that there will not be any members of the media/press allowed sideline passes or field access at Franklin County.

This is floating around Facebook, I assume we could apply it to Franklin County now:

My .02: Terrible optics, and based upon video not a great case.  I'm a plaintiff's lawyer, and while I am a staunch defender of access to the courts and trial by jury, this is a suit seeking a judgment of comparative negligence.  My first question is, since he was on the job, has he already received a worker's comp award? Unknown.  As for the suit against Trinity, the negligence question is one of duty.  Is there probably a duty that Trinity has to keep sideline spectators safe? Yes.  Could his lawyer find an expert to say that the sideline for such a vaunted program was too narrow for reporters carrying equipment to escape an out-of-bounds play, and that they therefore breached their duty? Yes.  That defeats summary judgment prior to trial (low standard in Kentucky). In the old days of "contributory negligence," Trinity would argue that Cowgill assumed the risk and had a complementary duty to keep himself safe and did not do so, and the verdict would be in Trinity's favor. However, now in Kentucky, a jury apportions "fault." Could a jury from Jefferson County decide that Cowgill bore 80% of the fault and Trinity bore a 20% fault for having sidelines to narrow for reporters they knew would cover games? Absolutely.  If a jury were to find his actual damages (medical expenses, lost wages, diminished gait, shortened earnings career, pain and suffering) at, say, $4 million, then Cowgill gets a verdict of $800,000.  Cowgill's problem afterwards though, is that 1) has to pay back his health insurance company a % of what the health insurance company paid for medical expenses, as well as any workers comp reimbursement payments (subrogation); and 2) he has to pay his lawyer (1/3 - 40% contingent fee) and his costs and expenses, which in this case are probably $100K minimum.  I don't see the economics here.  His lawyer is not someone on the list of people known for being a big-time Plaintiff's lawyer, and I also think his employer should consider the possibility that Cowgill and the station will be banned from Trinity sports contests.

Does anyone know if the roster restrictions were still in effect last season? Tackett made it sound as if they were in this years rules clinic because it sounded like those restrictions had been lifted for this season. If it was in effect it was something like a restriction of 80 dressed players. 

5 minutes ago, barrel said:

Does anyone know if the roster restrictions were still in effect last season? Tackett made it sound as if they were in this years rules clinic because it sounded like those restrictions had been lifted for this season. If it was in effect it was something like a restriction of 80 dressed players. 

I believe you could have a full roster but the sidelines were still extended further down that normal.

7 minutes ago, gchs_uk9 said:

I believe you could have a full roster but the sidelines were still extended further down that normal.

I think you're correct. I know for sure that the team sidelines were extended down further last year.

37 minutes ago, Hearsay said:

My .02: Terrible optics, and based upon video not a great case.  I'm a plaintiff's lawyer, and while I am a staunch defender of access to the courts and trial by jury, this is a suit seeking a judgment of comparative negligence.  My first question is, since he was on the job, has he already received a worker's comp award? Unknown.  As for the suit against Trinity, the negligence question is one of duty.  Is there probably a duty that Trinity has to keep sideline spectators safe? Yes.  Could his lawyer find an expert to say that the sideline for such a vaunted program was too narrow for reporters carrying equipment to escape an out-of-bounds play, and that they therefore breached their duty? Yes.  That defeats summary judgment prior to trial (low standard in Kentucky). In the old days of "contributory negligence," Trinity would argue that Cowgill assumed the risk and had a complementary duty to keep himself safe and did not do so, and the verdict would be in Trinity's favor. However, now in Kentucky, a jury apportions "fault." Could a jury from Jefferson County decide that Cowgill bore 80% of the fault and Trinity bore a 20% fault for having sidelines to narrow for reporters they knew would cover games? Absolutely.  If a jury were to find his actual damages (medical expenses, lost wages, diminished gait, shortened earnings career, pain and suffering) at, say, $4 million, then Cowgill gets a verdict of $800,000.  Cowgill's problem afterwards though, is that 1) has to pay back his health insurance company a % of what the health insurance company paid for medical expenses, as well as any workers comp reimbursement payments (subrogation); and 2) he has to pay his lawyer (1/3 - 40% contingent fee) and his costs and expenses, which in this case are probably $100K minimum.  I don't see the economics here.  His lawyer is not someone on the list of people known for being a big-time Plaintiff's lawyer, and I also think his employer should consider the possibility that Cowgill and the station will be banned from Trinity sports contests.

If you were representing Trinity what would you advise them to do and do you think Trinity should counter-sue Cowgill for legal expenses?

His original claim is for workers' compensation. That will pay all his medicals and indemnity benefits at 2/3 of his average weekly wage, with a cap. This is a third party claim, and if he is successful his WC carrier gets reimbursed for its payout. I was an official and a lawyer. It doesn't look like the sideline was crowded. Schools are responsible for people on their sidelines in terms of conduct. I just don't see the lability here but do think THS needs to keep its sidelines clear. I am not saying they did or they didn't. Never been to a home game here, so I can't comment. I will say that we always told the chain crew that if they see something coming to drop the chains and get out.

39 minutes ago, theguru said:

If you were representing Trinity what would you advise them to do and do you think Trinity should counter-sue Cowgill for legal expenses?

Trinity will have no shortage of defense lawyers, including their own insurance defense lawyers, willing to hop aboard and defend this one.  Unless there is some earth-shattering evidence or a really negative pre-trial ruling, I would expect this to be vigorously defended and be a trial case.  Trinity may not actually incur much in the way of legal fees, because this is what you have insurance coverage for.  Possibly they have one of those policies in which you pay the first "X" in fees, as your deductible.  I think a counterclaim on anything would be difficult.  Wrongful use of civil proceedings? Trinity did owe Cowgill a duty of care and he got hurt, so maybe not a great case but hard to say frivolous.  A counterclaim might stir up the Plaintiff's bar to want to get involved.  I would just defend it hard.

1 hour ago, theguru said:

If you were representing Trinity what would you advise them to do and do you think Trinity should counter-sue Cowgill for legal expenses?

Get him for trespassing. 

Can anything that he said in interviews after and since be used to disqualify any of his arguments in the filing? "The odds were against me after 36 years." This statement seems to say that he knew there was an assumed risk by standing on the sideline.  

I almost compare this to a weather man getting hit by a limb during a hurricane and suing the city that got hit by the hurricane.

42 minutes ago, laketime85 said:

Can anything that he said in interviews after and since be used to disqualify any of his arguments in the filing? "The odds were against me after 36 years." This statement seems to say that he knew there was an assumed risk by standing on the sideline.  

I almost compare this to a weather man getting hit by a limb during a hurricane and suing the city that got hit by the hurricane.

I can't see why that wouldn't be admissible evidence in a trial.

12 minutes ago, Colonels_Wear_Blue said:

I can't see why that wouldn't be admissible evidence in a trial.

Probably could be, as a statement by a party-opponent.  Seems to indicate that he knew that getting hit out of bounds was a risk and that time caught up with him on that risk.

The Plaintiff's Bar on "The Kentucky Trial Court Review" Facebook page is not being kind about the case.  That's not a real good sign for 'ol Fred.