1. Minnesota Mock Trial 2009 - 2010 Kelly Anderson v. Dale Rockford and John Reilly High School

2. The Essentials of the Case I. Guide to the Case Materials II. Introduction to the Facts and the Law III. A Closer Examination of the Evidence

3. Guide to the Case Materials: Getting Started 1. Procedure 2. Facts 3. Law 4. Witnesses 5. Theme

4. Introduction to the Facts and the Law: Meet the Witnesses Plaintiff’s Witnesses Plaintiff, Kelly Anderson Student, Parker Vang Expert, Lynn Garcia, Ph.D Defendants’ Witnesses Defendant, Dale Rockford Assistant Principal and Athletic Director, Jamie Hagar Expert, Adrian Brady

5. Introduction to the Facts and the Law: The Theory of Negligence Intentional Torts Examples: Battery, Trespass Negligence No specific prohibitions Definition: any conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

6. Introduction to the Facts and the Law: The Theory of Negligence Negligence Definition: any conduct that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others. 1. Duty 2. Breach of Duty 3. Causation 4. Harm

7. Breach of Duty (the most visible element of negligence) Definition of “negligence” Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. Ask yourself what a reasonable person would have done in these circumstances. Negligence occurs when a person: 1. Does something a reasonable person would not do; or 2. Fails to do something a reasonable person would do.

8. Causation (the hidden element of negligence) Plaintiff must prove that the harm was in fact caused by the Defendants. “Breach of Duty” and “Harm” are not enough by themselves Plaintiff must prove that the relationship between the Defendants’ wrongdoing and the Plaintiff’s harm is legally significant Plaintiff must convince the judge that Defendants not only caused the harm, but that as a matter of principle or policy, Defendants should be liable for it.

9. Applying the Theory of Negligence Who is at fault?

10. Applying the Theory of Negligence a look at the special verdict form 1.Was Defendant Dale Rockford negligent? Yes or No ___________ 2.If you answered “Yes” to Question #1, then answer the following question: Was this negligence by Dale Rockford a cause of Jordan Anderson’s death? Yes or No ___________

11. Applying the Theory of Negligence The Case for Dale Rockford 1. Were Dale Rockford’s acts or omissions reasonable? 2. Did these acts or omissions cause Jordan Anderson’s death?

12. Applying the Theory of Negligence Return to the Special Verdict Form: Taking all of the fault that contributed as a cause of Jordan Anderson’s death as 100%, what percentage of fault do you attribute to: Dale Rockford __________ John Reilly High School __________ Jordan Anderson __________ Kelly Anderson __________

13. Applying the Theory of Negligence Special Legal Considerations John Reilly High School Employer Sponsor of the Athletic Program Jordan Anderson A Minor Contributory negligence

14. Review: Negligence Reasonable conduct Was there a breach of duty? Legal cause Did the breach cause the harm? Contributory negligence Allocation of responsibility 50% rule

15. A Closer Examination of the Evidence Defendants’ Witnesses Dale Rockford 1. Character 2. Circumstances 3. Actions

16. A Closer Examination of the Evidence Defendants’ Witnesses Jamie Hagar 1. Character 2. Circumstances 3. Actions plus: What was John Reilly High School’s role in events?

17. A Closer Examination of the Evidence Defendants’ Witnesses Adrian Brady 1. Credentials 2. Foundation for Analysis 3. Expert Conclusions plus: What are the weaknesses in Plaintiff’s case?

18. A Closer Examination of the Evidence Plaintiff’s Witnesses Kelly Anderson 1. Character 2. Circumstances 3. Actions Compare and contrast Anderson’s role as parent against Rockford’s role as coach.

19. A Closer Examination of the Evidence Plaintiff’s Witnesses Parker Vang Just corroborative evidence, or more?

20. A Closer Examination of the Evidence Plaintiff’s Witnesses Lynn Garcia, Ph.D 1. Credentials 2. Foundation for Analysis 3. Expert Conclusions Think about: what experiences do these experts share with other witnesses? How do their experiences reflect feelings on reasonable conduct for coaches? For athletic programs?

21. A Closer Examination of the Evidence Exhibits Exhibit 1: AIA Position Statement Form 14.13 Exhibit 2: AIA Bylaws (Portion of Article 14) Exhibit 3: Curriculum Vitae of Lynn Garcia, Ph.D. Exhibit 4: Curriculum Vitae of Adrian Brady Exhibit 5: Anabolica Child Fatality Review Data Form Exhibit 6: Toxicology Report

22. A Closer Examination of the Evidence Exhibits Exhibit 7: NFSHSA Poster (Girl) Exhibit 8: NFSHSA Poster (Boy) Exhibit 9: NFSHSA Brochure Exhibit 10: Report of Race Times Exhibit 11: Bank Records Exhibit 12: NIDA InfoFacts, www.drugabuse.gov Exhibit 13: Anabolic Steroid Study: “Monitoring the Future”

23. Kelly Anderson v. Dale Rockford and John Reilly High School In conclusion: How many wrongs add up to responsibility?