According to the newspaper, the jury determined the NCAA “unreasonably increased the risk of harm of head impacts to Robert Geathers over and above the risks inherent to playing football.” And it also determined the NCAA “voluntarily assumed duties to protect the health and safety of Robert Geathers” and that the NCAA “negligently breached their duties” to him.
The NCAA is obviously going to appeal this decision and the onus would be identifying how the NCAA "unreasonably increased the risk of harm of head impacts over and above the risks inherent to playing football" - which is a wild statement for the jury to make, and also that the NCAA "voluntarily assumed duties to protect the health and safety" of the plaintiff. How?
I'm not a fan of the NCAA by any means but these are wild claims for the jury to have made.
taylodl•3mo ago
According to the newspaper, the jury determined the NCAA “unreasonably increased the risk of harm of head impacts to Robert Geathers over and above the risks inherent to playing football.” And it also determined the NCAA “voluntarily assumed duties to protect the health and safety of Robert Geathers” and that the NCAA “negligently breached their duties” to him.
The NCAA is obviously going to appeal this decision and the onus would be identifying how the NCAA "unreasonably increased the risk of harm of head impacts over and above the risks inherent to playing football" - which is a wild statement for the jury to make, and also that the NCAA "voluntarily assumed duties to protect the health and safety" of the plaintiff. How?
I'm not a fan of the NCAA by any means but these are wild claims for the jury to have made.