SOWERS v. CLINTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

IN RE: SOWERS V. CLINTON CENTRAL SCHOOL CORPORATION

ISSUE:

Did Clinton Central School Corporation exercise proper care in handling the dehydration of respondent’s son, or did they neglect to take measures that would have kept the child alive?

HOLDING

The court ruled that the school district did exercise proper care that they took appropriate actions to try to head off what eventually happened. It ruled, also, that the motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

ANALYSIS

The facts we are given seem to concur with the outcome reached by the court. There had been some issues of heat-related health problems the day before the death of the plaintiff’s son. Given this, and the heat wave still being in effect, the coaching staff changed the practice regimen, making it less stressful, and allowing for more frequent water breaks so that the players could continue to hydrate themselves. Furthermore, they continued the policy of “no contact”, made water breaks more frequent, and kept a close eye on all the players in an attempt to head off any dehydration. They particularly, for this case, checked in with Travis repeatedly throughout the practice. Each time, Travis asserted that he was okay. Whenever there was a question, one of the staff intervened.

Plaintiff, and their son, voluntarily signed the waivers required for participation in the football training camp. Both Travis and his parents were aware of the risks of participating in the football training. (Travis had prepared for this by working on the farm and engaging in strenuous activity before the training camp began.)

Perhaps an argument might have been made that Travis, being a minor, lacked the capacity to fully understand symptoms that would lead to his death, but plaintiff didn’t raise this as a claim to support their claim of negligence and less than the standard of care for their son. Though the staff kept after Travis about hydration, it might have been the case that Travis was unfamiliar with just what dehydration would do to his body. Perhaps he was more interested in being with his peers, with his team, than paying attention to his basic physical needs.

CONCLUSION

It would appear that plaintiff missed a chance to raise some important claims that might have led to a different result. If, instead of relying on negligence, they raised the issue of the youth and lack of awareness of their son. —His inability to realize the potential harm—they might have prevailed. It’s hard to say.

RAINY DAYS' READING

I am waiting out

The rain that will

Fall forhours, for days,

Drowning outdoor ambitions,

Compromising small plans

In exchange for feeding

And watering the world.

For now, I’m safe

And dry, a book

In hand, turning pages,

Marking time’s passage

By ignoring it, losing

Myself in a story

Not my own,

Carried along

On a river of words

That needs no rain

To refill it. The journey

Will take me

Back to the sunlight

When the story is

Done, and the storm

Has weakened and passed.

Copyright (c) 2011 by the author

AFTER THIS

Back to the game,

Back to our story

After this brief pause

From our sponsors,

The tweens have arrived,

A trio plus one child,

Paroled from the classroom,

Given back to the world

From which they came.

They’re free to play,

Make friends,

And mischief.

Life is noisy,

Life is disorganized

With them here,

Present and accounted for.

Loaded with more knowledge,

Equations, names and dates,

Explanations loosely held,

The girls brush it all aside

For the more important

Stories, facts and fictions,

That consume them

In their off hours.

Interruptions of silence

Intrude into the noise,

Calm dislodges quiet,

If only briefly

Ravenous for sugar,

Hungry for chocolate and chatter,

Thirsty for life, they down soda

After soda, preparations

For heir assault

On the world.

They have their own questions,

Their own demands for attention.

Let us pause

Ten seconds

For sanity

To announce itself.

And now we return

To our original

Programming

Already in progress.

COPYRIGHT (C) 2011 BY THE AUTHOR

MESMERIZED

MESMERIZED by

Fire growing

Smaller

But brighter

Until

Its glow--

still so bright--

Is the diamond I

Can wear on

My hand.

MESMERIZED BY

Water becoming

Ever deeper,

Ever more crystalline

As it rises, or I fall.

Either way

I’m afraid

Until

I recognize that

It as ice.

MESMERIZED by

Earth, firm

In its infirmity

Imposed upon,

Imprinted upon,

By bipedaltrespassers.

Thefirmament, divided,

Providing food and shelter,

Valleys, mountains

And miracles

MESMERIZED by

Air that flows

Over land or ocean

At varying speeds,

Flattenihng trees while

Steeling balloons,

Scouring beaches

While keeping planes aloft.

Fire and ice, earth and water make

Up the miracle I know.

COPYRIGHT (C) 2011 BY THE AUTHOR

ONE DAY

One day

Never

I will fly

Mind

Into the galaxy

What anybody tells you

Into the gravity

I will never have wings

That will

But I can still soar

Pull me

Over the open page

Down to

Looking upward

The ground

At the sky

Where I will

Where I will

Forever rest.

Copyright (c) 2011 by the author

Under Water

Overhead, watching

A child underwater

Sitting on the bottom

Of the pool,

Water-hose in hand,

No knowledge,

No fear of drowning

Until hands reach

From above--

My father lifts me

Up, up up to the surface

Back to the sunlight,

Back into the summer day.

With oxygen filling my lungs,

And fear swelling my heart,

I learned not

To trust water,

Not to approach it,

Not to believe

In a blue bottomless

Thing that occupies

More of the earth

Than the land I won’t

Venture far from.

Copyright (c) 2011 by the author

lashkejari brief

IN RE: LASHKEJARIV LASHKEJARI

ISSUE:

Is the award of attorneys’ fees a valid contract in terms a prenuptial agreement?

RULE:

The Florida Supreme Court, in the matter of Casto V Casto determined that while the state has an interest in promoting marriage, and thus cannot support any agreement that contravenes this position, the portion of a prenuptial agreement dealing with attorneys’ fees does not in and of itself promote the dissolution of marriage.

ANALYSIS

In the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in this matter, the justices made a point of distinguishing between a prenuptial agreement and other kinds of contracts. Twice in its written opinion it noted that most contracts originate at “arm’s length<” namely that there is no, or at least little, emotion in drawing up an agreement, this is not the case with a prenuptial agreement. The court might not step in when it comes to division of assets, disclosure of incomes, unless certain proofs are met. It is believed that, unless shown to be otherwise, that the parties acted in good faith, made full disclosure, entered willingly into the agreement.

The closeness of the parties does not come into play when it comes to agreeing to terms about awards of attorneys’ fees, as the court has held that parties aren’t laying the groundwork for intentionally ending the relationship, but setting up ground rules “just in case.” Therefore the attorneys’ fees provision assumes that the parties are acting rationally, having both consulting with counsel, and voluntarily consenting to terms.

While Mrs. Lashkejari contested the terms of the prenuptial agreement when she sought to end the marriage, and was successful in proving the unfairness of the terms, she, according to the fees provision, being the prevailing party, was awarded fees, but so was her husband. Her protestation that Mr. Laskejari was better situated financially to handle the fees was disregarded as the court held that the contract fulfilled all the necessary obligations of a valid contract.

CONCLUSIO

The prevailing party, Mrs. Lashkejari, was ordered to pay the fees.