[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.

And of course the jury is completely unaware of the fact that Stanford's (or Monsanto's or Bayer's) assets are orders of magnitude greater than some "average person" making a negligence case against Stanford. Right!

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.

The unlimited resources matter not a wit if 12 regular citizens decide that Stanford "did wrong", and that decision isn't necessarily based on any objective facts, but rather the juries sympathy for the plaintiffs. The loss function isn't just the probability of losing, it is the product of the probability of losing times the size of the award. Pain and suffering awards can be quite large, as I am sure you know. You can win 9 out of 10 similar cases and still lose big financially.
No institution wants to take that risk, and if put in such a situation will often settle cases that may have little real merit but plenty of sympathy risk. It consumes less of the "unlimited resources" than fighting the case will, without the large downside risk. Not much you can do in those types of cases, so yes, the administration does justifiably fear them. This fear is compounded by the bad public relations that often accompanies such lawsuits. This is often helped along by the plaintiff's representatives. On top of that, when one such case is decided for the plaintiff with a "large" award, the number of copycat cases will often explode because others see a higher likelihood of prevailing or getting a settlement. It is a "lose-lose" proposition for Stanford, so doing everything possible to avoid such cases may be viewed as quite reasonable.

Stanford is not Monsanto.  It’s a highly respected University.  Santa Clara County is a nice place for it to have cases heard.  

Obviously there has to be policies and procedures that are reasonable.  But that includes the realization that College students are not going to sit in their rooms studying 12 hours a day.  

Sorry, but given Stanfords resources and standing in the community  I don’t view them as the underdog in any litigation…. Far from it.

[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.

And of course the jury is completely unaware of the fact that Stanford's (or Monsanto's or Bayer's) assets are orders of magnitude greater than some "average person" making a negligence case against Stanford. Right!

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.

The unlimited resources matter not a wit if 12 regular citizens decide that Stanford "did wrong", and that decision isn't necessarily based on any objective facts, but rather the juries sympathy for the plaintiffs. The loss function isn't just the probability of losing, it is the product of the probability of losing times the size of the award. Pain and suffering awards can be quite large, as I am sure you know. You can win 9 out of 10 similar cases and still lose big financially.
No institution wants to take that risk, and if put in such a situation will often settle cases that may have little real merit but plenty of sympathy risk. It consumes less of the "unlimited resources" than fighting the case will, without the large downside risk. Not much you can do in those types of cases, so yes, the administration does justifiably fear them. This fear is compounded by the bad public relations that often accompanies such lawsuits. This is often helped along by the plaintiff's representatives. On top of that, when one such case is decided for the plaintiff with a "large" award, the number of copycat cases will often explode because others see a higher likelihood of prevailing or getting a settlement. It is a "lose-lose" proposition for Stanford, so doing everything possible to avoid such cases may be viewed as quite reasonable.

Stanford is not Monsanto.  It’s a highly respected University.  Santa Clara County is a nice place for it to have cases heard.  

Obviously there has to be policies and procedures that are reasonable.  But that includes the realization that College students are not going to sit in their rooms studying 12 hours a day.  

Sorry, but given Stanfords resources and standing in the community  I don’t view them as the underdog in any litigation…. Far from it.