http://www.kbtx.com/news/headlines/7177926.html

quote:

---

A Federal Court has sided with Texas A&M in a lawsuit over the 1999 Aggie bonfire collapse. In a decision Tuesday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld a lower court ruling that dismissed the complaints against A&M and several of its top officials.

That ruling stated that Texas A&M and its officials were protected under qualified immunity granted to state agencies under specific circumstances. The plaintiffs appealed the decision claiming the collapse of bonfire represented a state-created danger.

Tuesday's ruling determined the state-created danger theory was not clearly established law at the time of the accident, and therefore, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and the complaints against them should be dismissed.

---

Sounds like the lawsuits are finally at an end. The Supreme Court doesn't take many cases and I doubt this one will make the cut. We'll see how this plays out in relation to reincarnation of Bonfire.

Good news, I guess. We shall see if this is truly the end of the litigation or just another step towards a resolution.

The next step for the plaintiffs is to petition the entire Fifth Circuit to rehear the case. This decision came from a three-judge panel.

Then, short of an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which that court would have to decide to accept, this seems to mark the end of the plaintiffs' quest to lift the state liability cap and to hold the individual defendants, Bowen, Kibler, Thompson, et al, personally liable.

This isn't the end of the litigation, but it's an important benchmark.

Without the state's coffers being thrown wide open, those hungry trial lawyers will have to stem their appetite. Look for a settlement within the next couple of years. I'd be surprised to see the cases go to trial in state court. There are not enough potential damages to collect.

[This message has been edited by DualAG (edited 4/25/2007 1:39a).]

The Eagle:

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/7177926.html

quote:

---

The suit, which is separate from a state-level lawsuit pending in Brazos County's 361st District Court, alleged that university officials broke federal law by creating a danger through their indifference in preventing the collapse. A lower federal court stated in May 2004 that there was evidence of a "state-created danger," but ruled in the university's favor after concluding that the doctrine wasn't yet recognized by the court at the time of the 1999 collapse.

---

It will go on a little while longer for these blood sucking lawyers who want to hurt TAMU will continue their quest. They do not even care about their clients. All they want is the personal pleasure of beating TAMU at anything. I believe that if the appeal further the Supreme Court will not even hear the case. The one plaintiff that really gets to me is that estranged mom who never even had a relationship with her son. I understand the father had not pursued the case.

So the blood sucking lawyers that read this board, and I am sure you do, chase another ambulance. This one has parked.

quote:

---

It will go on a little while longer for these blood sucking lawyers who want to hurt TAMU will continue their quest. They do not even care about their clients. All they want is the personal pleasure of beating TAMU at anything. I believe that if the appeal further the Supreme Court will not even hear the case. The one plaintiff that really gets to me is that estranged mom who never even had a relationship with her son. I understand the father had not pursued the case.

So the blood sucking lawyers that read this board, and I am sure you do, chase another ambulance. This one has parked.

---

Umm...they are being paid to win a case and collect money. I am sure they could care less about A&M itself...and are trying to win the case because that's what they were hired to do. I think you need to calm down about the lawyers thing...

I doubt very seriously that these attorneys are being paid by their "clients." You know very well how they will be paid if at all. All lawyer jokes apply here.

quote:

---

The suit, which is separate from a state-level lawsuit pending in Brazos County's 361st District Court, . . .

---

Northside,

You need to read up on some of the other threads about this litigation.

Yes, the federal lawsuit was indeed separate. It was filed in Federal District Court in Houston and appealed to the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.

However, it has direct bearing on the the fate of the suits filed in state court. Absent a finding of a "state created danger," which the 5th Circuit refused to recognize yesterday, the amount of money plaintiffs can collect in the state court lawsuits is severely limited.

Plaintiffs sought federal intervention to overturn the state's half-million dollar liability cap, and also its indemnification of the university officers. For the third time, plaintiffs were unsuccessful.

Therefore, without the ability to pry open the state treasury or go after the personal wealth of Ray Bowen and others, it is more than likely that the trial lawyers representing the plaintiffs will urge their clients to settle.

There's not enough money under the state liability cap to feed these hungry attorneys.

[This message has been edited by DualAG (edited 4/25/2007 2:54p).]

I seem to remember a suit filed against the Red Pots (and maybe other individuals). What is the standing on that case, does this ruling have any bearing on these cases if they are still open, and what are their implications on any future University action.

The Reds settled. Receipts were limited, as they came, for the most part, from the liability coverage of their parents' homeowners insurance policies. No big money there, but that area has been covered.

There is also a lawsuit or series of such actions against the Zachary company, which provided the crane.

However, the potential for big money--if it had materialized--would have come from the public funds of the State of Texas, provided the plaintiffs had been successful at lifting liability cap.

I predict an eventual settlement, after the noise dies down about appealing to the full Fifth Circuit and after speculation about an appeal to the Supreme Court quiets.

[This message has been edited by DualAG (edited 4/25/2007 5:03p).]

Build The Hell Outta Bonfire !

If H B Zachry is liable then why not the land owners who donated the trees. How about the gas company that made the gasoline or the manufacturer of the chainsaws?

You can sue anybody you want. Getting a judgment and collecting on it are another matter.

I broke a nail...Johnson & Johnson...you're going down!!

Dual -- I didn't say it didn't have direct bearing on the rulings and likelihood of settlement outside of court... you're completely right there. I was merely pointing out that the suits are, in fact, not at an end in their entirety.

I look forward to the day that the suits are over, but that could be a while from now (or it could be tomorrow -- who knows with litigation!).

It reminds me of a cartoon from a few years back.

In BLOOM COUNTY ?
A paparazi (sp?) jumped out from behind the bushes to take pictures and caused an injury.

Let's sue NIKON for the injury deeper pockets.

Zachry is no more liable than any other supplier of donated hardware to the students. How about Igloo and the cable supplier? I am sure there were some water coolers around.

This is what is wrong with the litigation process. There should be a timely resolution of an defendant's liability by competent judges. The jury system does not allow for proper skilled analysis of liability as opposed to being tried for causing the accident. Plantiff lawyers rely upon ignorant juries who are likely to vote on emotions as opposed to cause and effect. Why should Zachry or any other supplier be thrown in the suit because they rented or suppliled a piece of equipment to an independent operator. I hope Zachry uses its deep pockets to fight these blood suckers until their bank accounts are depleted.