none of us can guess what the parents are thinking. but this quote by someone earlier, i think, nails it

quote:

---

If the University had not tried to hide behind immumity and accepted their share of the responsibility for the accident, then most likely the students would not have been sued.

---

i dont think it's about the money or getting even...i think more than likely the parents want someone to take responsibility for the accident, and up to this point, no one really has.

maybe the parents cant chalk it up to a random happenstance event, and they are truly looking for someone to have to take responsibility and admit (whether through their own accord, or through the courts) that they contributed to the accident.

just my thoughts. i dont agree with it, but that's what i think they are thinking.

The University has already put forth what caused the accident - the Redpots made a change to how the stack was being constructed (hammering down the upper-tier logs). No one realized that would cause the lower tiers to become unstable.

There is simply noone to hold accountable here - noone did anything deliberately wrong or truly negligent.

In retrospect, it is easy to say that things could have been done smarter or better - the University could have hired/assigned a professional advisor who might have prevented this, or whatever.

And regardless of what they are thinking, dragging this through the courts for 8+ years now... that's not the answer.

Whatever their desire, all they are accomplishing is denying current (and Old) Ags the chance to participate in something their own child believed in.

Their appears to be a hell of a lot of speculating as to what the parents of these kids feel and believe.

dp

[This message has been edited by SquareOne07 (edited 7/1/2008 6:25a).]

it's a discussion board. did you expect any different?

quote:

---

i dont think it's about the money or getting even...i think more than likely the parents want someone to take responsibility for the accident, and up to this point, no one really has.

---

In that most civil litigation concludes by settlement, and most settlements include a clause denying fault by any of the parties, what are the chances of having this happen?

Do you really think Mr. Keith will allow his clients to embark upon a messy and expensive trial, the cost of which could easily eat up the potential money to be collected from the rather modest bank accounts, or insurance policies, of Bowen, Sutherland, Hopgood, Thompason, et. al.?

Nobody is going to stand up and say: "I'm responsible." It just won't happen.

If the families are looking for closure, they won't find it thorough litigation.

[This message has been edited by WPAG (edited 7/5/2008 12:14a).]