1. Proper AED locations and trainings
1.1. This is a risk because there is a ton of traffic on a college campus and there needs to be safety measure for the most potential emergencies that can arise.
1.1.1. This can be very severe as the proper equipment and treatment needs to be present to prevent the issues with heart attacks. By definition according to Kaiser and Cole this could be a fatal incident (Kaiser & Cole, p. 589).
1.1.2. This may not happen as much and that is a good thing. We do not want to have to battle for someone's life. However, we know that this is very serious and in the case it happens, the University needs to be prepared.
1.1.2.1. The treatment that would need to be in place to ensure that nothing can go wrong is to put AED equipment around the school and athletic facilities. Also, as a new staff member gets hired they must go through courses to get certified to handle the AED system in case of emergency.
1.1.3. The parties at risk for a fault is the University as a whole, the Athletic department, Athletic trainers. These are all part of the organization that if they want to have sports must know the prevention of risks that lie ahead.
1.2. Yes, there could be negligence. However, I believe that this would be more something that the University should know about beforehand.
1.2.1. A duty of the University would be owed to athletes and those on the premise to have a safe environment. This always points to the duty to deal with the idea of foreseeability. Foreseeability is the action to be trained properly for anything that can occur (Sawyer, p.192).
1.2.2. The Standard of care is triggered by the relationship with the injured person. For the standard of care the University has the need to care for those on the premise to ensure the safety from current and potential issues that may arise.
1.2.3. This would fall under cause in fact. If a student, fan, coach, or athletes, etc. had a heart-attack and the AED was not around or people on staff were not trained they would be the direct cause that results in the time being gone to save the life of the person at risk.
1.2.4. The potential injuries could be death, or internal damages to the person suffering from the heart failure.
2. Closing fields/track during practices
2.1. During practices for the soccer team/lacrosse teams the track is surrounding the field. There are signs out that say track is closed but people ignore the signs and continue to run/walk on the track. The problem is when balls fly and hit the people on the track.
2.1.1. The severity of the injuries that can arise from something of this nature ranges from low-major I believe. There is always the chance of a freak accident but majority of the incidents would most likely be low (Kaiser & Cole, p. 589).
2.1.2. This has been an issue from where I played college soccer and occurred every time we had a training session. We had to constantly tell people to exit the track. However, they would never listen.
2.1.2.1. The treatment that ensures the risk of this happen to be cut down would be to enforce and have the coaches or a security guard out there making sure that no one is going to be on the track when the training session is going on.
2.1.3. Athletic department would be liable and at risk. If any students or people that are not associated with the sport gets injured it can fall on the athletic department and University for not keeping the issues at bay.
2.2. I believe that this would fall under negligence. The reason being is because the signs let people know that it is closed and not to go on the track. However, the enforcing of the rule is not as strict as it should be. Negligence is in tact because of the duty to maintain a safe environment, breach of duty by not holding the rules in place, causation, and potential injuries (Sawyer, p.192).
2.2.1. The duty of the organization in this case would be to ensure the safety of all parties on campus. This includes the athletes participating in training and the outside people involved.
2.2.2. The standard care would be for the athletes. The coaches should be on top of making sure that the areas that are supposed to be marked out are properly done so that nothing can happen that causes injuries to either parties outside of the playing lines.
2.2.3. The causation of this incident would fall under cause in fact. The athletics department and coaches not upholding the signs would cause for the potential risk and injury.
2.2.4. Potential injuries can occur to players, coaches, and standby people on the track. Balls that exit the playing field have the potential to hit a runner/walker, roll under them so they lose balance and fall, or if an athletes collides with a person on the track. This can range anywhere from a cut, concussion, to a broken bone.
3. Proximity of bleachers in a basketball arena.
3.1. This can be an issue because players in play could have to dive for a ball into the stands and one be injured on the play or potentially injure someone sitting in the stands.
3.1.1. The severity of this issue can be minor to major I believe. The need for little to major attention to the hospital could be an issue (Kaiser & Cole, p. 589).
3.1.2. This happens every so often. This is a play that cannot be stopped during the run of play. If a player needs to chase down a ball into the stand he/she is going to lay out for the ball with the potential risk of the bleachers and fans.
3.1.2.1. Treatment would be to make sure that there is a safe distance apartment from the floor and the stands so that the case of a player diving into the stands is prevented as much as possible.
3.1.3. The parties at risk would be the University, Athletic department, and the facility management team. They would be at risk because those are the teams directly involved with the building and layout of the arena and the floor plan.
3.2. This one is tricky. I do not believe that this would be negligence. I think the reason being is because the University should know that this is a risk and they are willing to take it? For negligence I think they would need to have the bleachers a safe distance back and the potential injuries can still occur.
3.2.1. Duty of the University would be to plan ahead to make sure that athletes in action and those spectating the event would be safe while doing so.
3.2.2. This would be the standard care of the University directly. Thinking about the Bearman case compared to this one, Bearman was injured in the parking lot outside the stadium. This instance would be inside the arena on the athletics facility building.
3.2.3. Proximate causation would be the reason for this action. The University should be able to foresee the risks with having the bleachers and fans so close to the floor (Sawyer, p. 192).
3.2.4. The potential injures that can arise could range to both athletes and fans in the stands and could be anywhere from bruises to broken bones.