[lex24]

I get that a University has a enormous responsibility.  Finding a middle ground between allowing Animal House and trying to be Carrie Nation University is not easy, I suspect.  But doable for all those smart folks.

IMHO the problem isn't finding an appropriate "middle ground". The problem is that the US legal system can't cope with a "reasonable best efforts" attempt at anything. We often see lawsuits filed in cases where the respondent had actually made such an effort, but the jury judged it wasn't enough. This judgement is often based on ability to pay, not whether there was actually "negligence". Stanford has great ability to pay and they are not a sympathetic "defendant". The administration is petrified by their fear of lawsuits, so they do arguably more destructive things to ensure "they can't be sued". They are far from the only organization that behaves that way.

No, it’s not based on ability to pay. Assuming there is a finding of negligence,  its based on evidence of the plaintiffs damages.  In a PI case , general and special.  Medical bills past and future, lost wages, pain and suffering.  Assets of defendants are not allowed to be put into evidence.

Now, as to who gets sued, “deep pockets” matter, of course.  But in a negligence case there is no evidence presented on the defendants assets or insurance. 

Punitive damages, different story.  But punitves  aren’t recoverable in a negligence case.

Stanford has unlimited resources to fight lawsuits.  Certainly not “disadvantaged” on that score. I doubt very much Administration is “petrified” of lawsuits. If so, they should find other jobs.

[lex24]

I get that a University has a enormous responsibility.  Finding a middle ground between allowing Animal House and trying to be Carrie Nation University is not easy, I suspect.  But doable for all those smart folks.

IMHO the problem isn't finding an appropriate "middle ground". The problem is that the US legal system can't cope with a "reasonable best efforts" attempt at anything. We often see lawsuits filed in cases where the respondent had actually made such an effort, but the jury judged it wasn't enough. This judgement is often based on ability to pay, not whether there was actually "negligence". Stanford has great ability to pay and they are not a sympathetic "defendant". The administration is petrified by their fear of lawsuits, so they do arguably more destructive things to ensure "they can't be sued". They are far from the only organization that behaves that way.

No, it’s not based on ability to pay. Assuming there is a finding of negligence,  its based on evidence of the plaintiffs damages.  In a PI case , general and special.  Medical bills past and future, lost wages, pain and suffering.  Assets of defendants are not allowed to be put into evidence.

Now, as to who gets sued, “deep pockets” matter, of course.  But in a negligence case there is no evidence presented on the defendants assets or insurance. 

Punitive damages, different story.  But punitves  aren’t recoverable in a negligence case.

Stanford has unlimited resources to fight lawsuits.  Certainly not “disadvantaged” on that score. I doubt very much Administration is “petrified” of lawsuits. If so, they should find other jobs.