Michigan uses statute of limitations claim against Anderson’s victims
Title says it all. Probably had to be done but when lawyers get involved it was bound to happen. I like lawyers but this seems a bit tone deaf as the first approach.
Not a good look for the school.
Why? If Michigan and their attorney’s interpretation of state statue is civil suits have to be presented within 3 years of a transpired event and the doctor has been dead for 12 years, don’t they have a legitimate point?
Because it's wrong that's why.
It’s wrong state lawmakers that have nothing to do with the University made statue of limitation laws?!
I have tried to steer clear of this whole topic, as it is full of landmines, but obviously the victims need to be heard here, and UM needs to be far better than its B1G brethren in dealing with this situation. That being said, how on Earth can any institution reasonably be expected to defend itself against potentially false claims and allegations when 1. the alleged offender has been dead for more than a decade and 2. some of these claims are more than 50 years old?
There is a reason why statutes like this one exist. These ^^^^^ are the reasons...
As an attorney and litigator, this is precisely what I would have recommended to U-M. These claims go back as far as 50 years and the doctor is not around to defend himself. Moreover, to toll the statute of limitations, a plaintiff must prove "fraudulent concealment," i.e. that they were unable to ascertain that they had a claim due to intentional concealment by the defendant. Here, the victims of his abuse knew at the time that they were being mistreated but failed to act on their claims, choosing to raise them in a legal setting only decades later.
While one may consider this a "bad look" from a p.r. standpoint, it is absolutely the correct legal position for the U to take.
It's a bad look in the short term, but is the right move in the long term
If the University waives (?) the statute of limitations for this case, can it put them at risk that future cases that have also had the statute expire can also be contested, since this set a precedent?
No. Waivers are case specific.
It is bizarre for anybody to label this a "bad look" for UofM. I could understand the criticism if the University sent a spokesperson to a press conference and they made this statement, or if the school's public relations department sent it out in a press release. If that were the case, maybe it looks like you're being needlessly defensive and antagonizing the victims.
But that's not what happened. The story is quoting directly from the pleadings. Why on earth would it be a "bad look" for Michigan if its lawyers assert the strongest legal argument they have -- one that is surrendered if they don't assert it in the answer, no less -- to a judge in a court of law?
And why begin the criticism with the affirmative defenses? Why not be upset that Michigan filed an answer to begin with? Why not be upset that Michigan hired lawyers to defend themselves in the first place? Isn't putting up any sort of defense at all a "bad look?"
Maybe someone can explain to me what an acceptable "look" is in a situation like this.
Lawyers don’t make a decision like this. They present the client with the option, and the client decides.
If that is the law then Michigan is doing nothing wrong.
A bad look would be a massive cover up, denying all allegations. Though I wouldn't say Michigan's response has been perfect, there doesn't seem to be a massive cover up from those in charge right now.
What would be interesting is to see what Michigan's reaction would have been if the allegations fell into the statue of limitations.
The law doesn't decide what is and isn't morally right. We have (and had) bad laws. Laws change all the time.
I understand this decision from an institutional perspective. But that doesn't make it a just, right or moral decision.
Regardless of the law, there is only one this will end: a 9 figure settlement
Michigan is obviously in a tough spot and did what is legally smart. And let's not forget that Michigan isn't washing their hands of this entirely by what was quoted at the end of the article, ""determined to acknowledge and reckon with that past and, to the extent possible, provide justice—including in the form of monetary relief—to Anderson's survivors."
The defense lawyers are upset, of course, because they won't get the large payday they wanted.
Michigan's lawyers are the defense lawyers.
In another article that I read last week (don't remember where so I can't cite it), the legal staff said that, yes, the statute of limitations was expired, but Michigan was already working with the victims on compensation. They're not running away from this.
The problem being, a number of posters want full everything to somehow prove we are above everyone in handling everything. It's not the same, the doc is dead, the coach is dead, the AD involved is dead...trying to dredge up something from that long ago is not as simple. Do victims still matter? Yes absolutely. And it sounds like UM is trying to own that part of it while invoking limitations.
Once a lawsuit is filed, you are forced to fight back, even if you're in the wrong. Michigan should be doing everything they can to get the lawsuit dismissed. Especially if there is a legitimate reason like the statute of limitations being expired or if they've made a reasonable settlement offer and the opposing lawyers are declining because they know the offer will go up the longer the case goes on because Michigan will be taking a PR hit the entire time.
Once the case is dismissed, if they don't offer the victims a reasonable amount and don't disassociate from enablers (Canham), then the university should continue to be scrutinized.
If it were MSU or PSU doing this all of you apologists would be spouting “not us, leaders and best” nonstop. Gross.
Can someone with better knowledge of both UM and MSU cases outline the actions, timelines, and statements (in summary, factual, form)?
It would be interesting to compare and contrast specific actions and timelines in the respective cases, given the obvious similarities - and differences, of course.
I mean I don't have an exact timeline, but MSU making the shitshow that was John Engler president, who then proceeded to talk shit about victims and make things worse for a year before resigning, is one example that already shows MSU handled their situation more poorly
this isn't PSU or MSU...Paterno was still alive, Sandusky was still Sanduskying...Nassir is still alive, Simon IS STILL enjoying all her perks, and sparty hired every slappy they could to tell the victims they are lying and wrong...made a public joke out of it. UM is saying...look, this is just coming to light, the doc is gone, the coach is gone, the AD is gone...there is no testimony, there is no criminal recourse at this point. All they can do is establish facts, interview victims, and determine the almighty dollar and a do something image to make it all better...sadly that's what it's come to anymore. I know UM also offered counseling as well. It's not even close to the same response. And perhaps some of this is in response to how other schools recently botched the handling of their own problems...shit the Paterno family is still fighting it...
And you're still doing it.
Biggest sexual abuse scandal in school history, and people on this board are still engaging in self-righteous whataboutism.
I don't know why people like you refuse to see the clear differences in these cases. The response by UofM vs MSU and PSU is so clearly different. Remember all the Paterno protection in Happy Valley? How MSU hired John Engler to bully victims and bury it? What has happened in this case that is even the same order of magnitude of anything they've done? I don't know why people think that anything Michigan does other than handing out a blank check makes them just as bad as MSU or PSU. It's completely different
Of course they're handling things differently.
Plausible deniability vs. historical relevance.
All three are doing what the lawyers tell them to do.
And as far as "covering things up", I'm not sure collective moral integrity has a solid foundation there given the fact that this went on for decades and was well known in the athletic department.
So, there's that.
-someone says if this were PSU/MSU did this, the board would rip on them
-responds on why what we did was not the same as PSU/MSU
-“The board is engaging in whataboutism!”
lol, get the fuck out of here. Responding to a post that specifically addresses other schools’ responses to sexual assault isn’t whataboutism. That’s moronic
MSU and PSU handled their situations infinitely worse
Not only was there the Nassar situation at MSU but ESPN also released a report showing that Izzo and Dantini both recruited questionable players and both coaches fostered and promoted a culture of sexual assault against women. Engler’s marching orders were to act like a complete tool and keep the focus off Izzo and Dantini at all costs.
except msu and psu didn't do this. they stonewalled actual discovery every step of the way, and continue to do so.
on the other hand, we are facing it openly. we don't appear to be hiding from this, nor trying to suppress it, meanwhile protecting the university as a whole. it seems like the right approach to me.
There is a reason statutes of limitations exist. The further one gets from an event, the more difficult it is to prove or disprove the allegations. Documents may be lost. Witnesses die or or no longer available for other reasons. Memories become hazy, and subject to people redefining events in their own minds. They are a legislative/societal judgment that balancing the rights of plaintiffs and defendants to a just outcome requires that a claim be brought within a certain period. That will bar some valid claims, but it will also bar claims that may be false—and I am NOT suggesting any claims asserted in this matter are false, I have not followed it closely. But there is nothing inappropriate invoking the statute of limitations when it is available.
I mean its been only about half a century. In spite of the hand wringing and Sparty‘s obvious interest in playing this for all it‘s worth, this case really kinda fails to move the needle especially in the current world situation.
Um no. There's a pandemic so we're supposed to be less outraged about this shit?
Depends on how or if they compensate the victims outside of a court mandated decision
It sounds like they still plan to compensate victims at least.
The people making this decision are responsible for a multi-billion dollar endowment. It seems pretty safe to assume that they believe they have an obligation to protect that endowment within the bounds of the law, even as they might recognize the need to find other means of compensating victims than surrendering control of the process to a judicial proceeding with no legal basis.
That, anyway, is the maximally pro-UM way of seeing things.
Another part of their Motion to Dismiss is they've already stated they're willing to settle and have set aside a fund to compensate the victims without going through court. Essentially they're telling the victims they'll pay them for their troubles without having to pay the 1/3 contingency fee that the attorneys will get. The only people who stand to benefit in keeping this in court is the plaintiffs attorneys.
And yes. I'm a lawyer as well.
It's a bad look for the university, but the right move legally and in the long run. They just want to settle out of court instead of victims taking this to trial and letting them tell their story without being able to mount their own defense. People are mad about this, but also not sure what the university's other option was
It's a bad look by the school, but I get why they said the claims are barred. Much like how all of the lawsuits are going to make arguments tilted toward their point of view, UM's defense is going to rely on other views and legal tools. It's going to be gross, but not unexpected.
Money, money, money. It makes the world go round & causes people to make bad decisions.
So what you are saying is that all the self-righteous bullshit from the members of this board when it was Penn State, Michigan State, and Ohio State was complete and total hypocrisy...
Please elaborate- how is this the same as MSU and PSU?
Well, here I am arguing with someone on the internet. It's the same because - at least in MSUs case - MSU also argued that the statute of limitations had expired on many of their cases and therefore should be thrown out. It's the reason the state of Michigan changed the law!
MSU also argued after reaching its $500m settlement that some new lawsuits did not meet the 2 year window in that settlement and should be thrown out:
-----------
I'm sorry if I don't see a difference between MSU saying in court: "the statute of limitations has passed on these claims."
and Michigan saying in court: "the statute of limitations has passed on these claims."
... because it's the same exact thing.
-----------
As I've said in many other posts, MSUs handling of our situation was wayyyyyy worse, in a lot of different ways. But don't sit on this message board and pretend that Michigan isn't out here making the same legal arguments that MSU did.
So in principle I agree with you- I'm not surprised both universities utilized similar legal arguments in this case. To your concluding remark- I am hopeful that is where Michigan will do far better than MSU (and PSU) did in the response department. I think Michigan has done fairly well in that area thus far and I think they've been fairly open in their response and have been very sympathetic to victims to this point. That is where I am implying Michigan is thus far doing a far better job than MSU/PSU did with their respective scandals. I certainly hope that continues to be the case
Very confused? How are they using the statute? I can go take a picture with the statute? Is it a tall statute? Any pics?
I was wondering when someone would post this. The reddit ragemachine was going hard on this yesterday trying to compare Michigan to MSU. I don't know how this all looks legally, but I know anything short of blank checks is going to look bad with the right headline. I hope Schlissel continues to lead well on this
For all the trolls - stand down, fools. This action does not equate to "is going to turn back on victims and deny any wrongdoing." From all accounts, the university is working pretty hard to work to determine who all was impacted by this and make remedies. But it does mean the ambulance-chasers will be largely cut out of an 8-figure payday.
You don't deserve a penny if it took you 50 years to file your sexual assault lawsuit. Trying to claim you deserve compensation when you knew there was a predator on campus and said nothing about it until he was dead is a joke. This plaintiff's inaction probably resulted in dozens more people getting assaulted as the doctor was allowed to roam free for years. He deserves nothing. UM should be fighting this with every tool they have available to them.
I am not a victim of this myself, but I can imagine many victims are traumatized by what they experienced and tried to bury it deep inside. It's a very cruel perspective to take someone who has already been victimized and try to pin the blame on them for other victims.
And while I guess I agree that there should be a statute of limitations in principle, I still think we as a university should compensate victims generously since I think there is no dispute that these things happened. I am sure many feel just as traumatized today as they did decades ago