Lynah Rink Refurbishment

[cornelldavy]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
Have people ever gotten hit by a basketball leaving the court?[/q]

Or perhaps hit by a basketball player leaving the court?

[billhoward]

Read the story in the Wall Street Journal this past week (11/30/04 P1) about how small the payouts really are. Often both sides agree to settle for no less than $1 million and no more than $5-6 million regardless of the outcome. That guarantees the plaintiff gets some money (as does, ahem, the lawyer) but the defendant doesn't really get soaked. Often the cap both sides agree to is by incredible coincidence the total insurance available from, say, the two doctors plus the hospital. If the jury comes back with nothing, the plaintiff gets $1M; if the jury awards $50M, the plaintiff gets the $6M privately agreed cap, and if the jury comes back with $3.2M, the plaintiff gets $3.2M.

The upshot (this from the pro-business WSJ): Despite all our griping about out of control jury awards, many cases never get to a jury, and many of the jury verdicts are are pretty small, to the extent that $5M is small, which I think it is in the non-ivory tower world if only 5% of lawsuits actually see a jury. And by extending the argument, it means all the companies griping about out of control jury verdicts mean verdicts that don't result in big awards. In some cases huge verdicts would bankrupt doctors, so if the doctor has $2M liability insurance and his share of the award is $20M, maybe the plaintiff collects at most the $2M plus $1M if he's lucky of the doctor's personal wealth assuming the doctor hasn't sheltered it. Even in joint and several liability areas (if the poor doctor can't pay his share, the rich hospital gets stuck with the poor guy's judgment to pay), there's a limit to how much you can wring out of a hospital or medical practice.

You'll need a WSJ online subscription to read this in full:

>>> Earlier this year, a New York state jury awarded Elizabeth and John Reden $112 million in a medical-malpractice case filed on behalf of their brain-damaged daughter. But the Redens didn't get $112 million. They got $6 million. In the debate over medical-malpractice lawsuits, multimillion-dollar verdicts have become an important rallying cry for advocates of legislation to curtail jury awards. From emergency rooms to state houses to the White House, the advocates point to the heavy cost of large malpractice awards. Behind the big dollar numbers, the reality is more complex. Many plaintiffs settle for less than a jury's verdict, to eliminate delays and the uncertainty of appeal. Sometimes, even before a jury rules, a plaintiff has signed an agreement that limits how much money actually changes hands.The Redens, for example, hedged the outcome of their case through a common device known as a "high low" agreement. No matter what the jury ruled, the two sides agreed to settle for between $2 million and $6 million. Such agreements protect plaintiffs from a lengthy appeals process and typically set the top end of any potential award close to the limit on the physician's insurance policy.
...
One of the most common ways this happens is through high-low agreements like the one used by the Redens. Under such bargains, plaintiffs are guaranteed a minimum amount of money (the "low") no matter what the jury decides. But if the jury comes back with a large award, the amount of money the plaintiff receives is capped by the high end of the high-low.

[puff]

[Q]peterg Wrote:

That said, more and more community rinks are installing netting along the sides of the rinks.  It is a bother to look through it at the game, but, like many things, you tend to get used to it and looking through it.  
[/q]

I sat in Section G behind the net the first couple years i had tickets. At first it was a pain, but after a while the only time i noticed it was trying to throw fish/newspaper on the ice. At this point, i actually like looking past a net than the glass, no reflections, distortions or anything. Its like looking past dirt or rain on your windshields, if you don't focus on it, you don't see it. Just my opinion.

[puff]

My last Cornell Hockey game for a long while tonight :-/ , unless my orders get changed (hopefully). The closest a puck has come to me has been the next section over, or if i was by the aisle, on the complet other side. But then again, i was in G for two years.

[Townie]

[Q]upperdeck Wrote:

 ..people need some accountability. you want to sit close to action you might see a wayword shot its you choice once you see your seat.. [/q]

I agree.  However, while Cornell may not be "required" to install netting, it could be viewed as the right thing, the "socially responsible" thing to do to protect the occupants, especially the elderly and the young.  It justs takes one trustee writing to Lehman.  Does anyone know if the end-board netting is a requirement?  If not, it opens an interesting can of worms.

I don't like watching through netting, and I pray nobody gets seriously hurt.  But I wouldn't want to be President Lehman and have a death occur on my watch, especially when it could have been prevented with nets.  In my opinion, it's just a matter of time.

Clear netting that meets code would be the perfect solution.  Of course, it must be retractable so that newspapers and fish can find their way onto the ice!

[Shorts]

On a somewhat tangential note, spending this season watching UConn's home games, I've gained a new appreciation for seam-less glass, which I must say I'd taken for granted during my four years in Lynah.  The seams are at least 3 inches wide or so, and opaque.  Not only that, but they apparently stick out into the playing area (volume?) enough that the puck can take some really weird bounces.  Last night, a player in his defensive end tried to clear the puck, shooting it at about a 45 degree angle to the glass, and the puck nearly came back at him.  Crazy stuff.

[CowbellGuy]

[Q]Townie Wrote:
Does anyone know if the end-board netting is a requirement?[/q]
Until a couple seasons ago, the end of the rink where RPI stuck the visitors had no net. I think the glass is pretty high and the ice is recessed below the floor a good bit so pucks tended to clear the heads of the people in the seats when they left the ice. The stuff on the wall behind them rarely faired well though. It was nice to have an unobstructed view, but you did kind of fear for your life.

[Rick \'71]

Speaking of risk management, one of the penalty box sitters told me he has been forbidden from throwing candy into the crowd by "risk management."  That must be why there are no skating bears this year.  Fear that they might fall on the ice and hurt themselves.  :-P

[CowbellGuy]

Nah, they just can't find anyone who wants to do it ::rolleyes::

[jeh25]

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:

 Nah, they just can't find anyone who wants to do it[/q]

Quick. Get athletics to lean on the University to offer Pat a tenure track job in Snee....

[Beeeej]

[Q]CowbellGuy Wrote:
 Nah, they just can't find anyone who wants to do it[/q]
I'd offer to do it again if the Pep Band promised not to chant "The Bear drives a cab!" at me this time.  :-P

Beeeej

[Jim Hyla]

[Q]Rick '71 Wrote:

 Speaking of risk management, one of the penalty box sitters told me he has been forbidden from throwing candy into the crowd by "risk management."  That must be why there are no skating bears this year.  Fear that they might fall on the ice and hurt themselves.   [/q]Yup, that's true. I asked for clarification as to why I couldn't thow candy. First it was because it could be thrown on the ice, then they came up with the risk management problem. However there is still hope, for they didn't say that risk management said no, but that they had to study the question.::rolleyes::

Wonder if they will have an answer by January? ::snore::


They did say that I could "hand out the candy", just not throw it. So I donated my bags of Snickers to the band.:-)

[Facetimer]

[Q]Rick '71 Wrote:

 Speaking of risk management, one of the penalty box sitters told me he has been forbidden from throwing candy into the crowd by "risk management."  That must be why there are no skating bears this year.  Fear that they might fall on the ice and hurt themselves.   [/q]

I guess risk management was also the brains behind having the penalty box "sitters" throw me condoms.  They want to keep my offspring to a minimum.

Rick '71 must have warned his friends in the Cornell administration of my potential dangers.  Apparently there is already a high population of facetimers with natural cribbage ability.

[CowbellGuy]

[Q]Facetimer Wrote:
They want to keep my offspring to a minimum.[/q]
I think that's something we all want.

[Rick \'71]

[Q]Facetimer Wrote:

 Apparently there is already a high population of facetimers with natural cribbage ability.[/q]


That's strange.  I haven't met any.