1. By: Avery Hoven, Faith Munez, Katie Willoughby 2ndperiod HUNT V. WILSON

2.  Jason Hunt was the star football player & was considered the big man on campus at High School. But he also had a reputation for heavy drinking.  After many instances, Lisa Kent, an Alcohol and Drug Free activist, brought it to the football coaches attention.  Although Coach Wilson had reason to believe the allegations were true, he believed there was not enough proof to consult school policy. THE CASE

3.  Weeks passed, and the coach observed changes in Jason’s attitude & had smelled alcohol on his breath at practice a few times.  Jason’s substance abuse was still not made into an issue.  During the Homecoming game Jason hurt his knee and had to go to the hospital  They found he had a blood alcohol concentration of.05.  This injury could potentially effect Jason’s collage scholarships. THE CASE

4.  Jason’s parents were furious.  They sued Coach Wilson for negligence because he ignored Jason’s drinking problem.  They argued that Jason could have been severely injured & that his alcohol consumption contributed to his knee injury. THE CASE

5.  Jason’s parents, Barry and Emily Hunt, were furious. They sued Coach Wilson for negligence because he ignored Jason’s drinking problem.  They argued that Jason could have been severely injured and that his alcohol consumption contributed to his knee problem.  Was Coach Wilson truly at fault or was Jason’s parents the root of the issue? THE ARGUMENT

6.  Emily Hunt, Jason’s mother believes Coach Wilson is in full responsibility of Jason’s drinking problem.  She states that it was a shock when they heard of Jason’s ongoing drinking problem, and that she and her husband had failed to see the signs.  They could not understand how all of Jason’s classmates acted on the issue, but his own coach failed to do so.  Emily proposed that Coach Wilson did not care enough about Jason’s well being to address the problem; he only cared about him playing in the state championship. EMILY HUNT’S ARGUMENT

7.  Lisa Kent, fellow student of Jason, argued that Coach Wilson had done what seemed to be nothing, when she was just trying to find a solution for the problem.  Lisa Kent stated, “What’s the point of having a policy if you do not use it when it is needed?”  This supports the Hunt’s case because Lisa’s testimony holds Coach Wilson accountable for the knowledge Lisa shared with him about Jason. AFFIDAVITS: LISA KENT

8.  Jon Baldwin, a student a Rayburn High School, testifies that athletes get special treatment and that the rules do not apply to them.  This testimony supports the Hunts case because it supports Mrs. Hunts claim that Coach Wilson did not involve school policy because he needed Jason on the team to win. AFFIDAVITS: JON BALDWIN

9.  Jason’s parents are blaming Coach Wilson for neglecting their son, when they have the more pivotal relationship and therefore more responsibility for their own son’s issues.  Coach Wilson did not fail his duty to Jason. He did in fact, act on the issue when he confronted Jason.  Coach Wilsons is not at fault for Jason’s was injury. Injuries happen all the time in football and are a risk of the game.  It was Jason who made the decision to drink while playing a dangerous sport. COACH WILSON’S ATTORNEY STATES:

10. It is unlawful for any person under that age of 21 to consume alcohol outside of their parent's home. Jones v. Anytown Raceway, Inc. says in order to sue someone for negligence the defendant must had had a responsibility that they did not meet. This means that the defendant would have had to fail their duty or their duty to protect another. The case Black v. Ross clarified that the responsibility of a person to another person depends on their relationship and how clearly the harm can be seen. The case of Standing v. Fanicek defines a duty to protect someone as one dictated by their relationship and awareness of their danger. In the case of Holly v. Any town Hotel harm does not have to foresee in a particular to prove a defendant negligent of protection. In the Case of Lu v. Lopez an accident is foreseeable if a person with ordinary intelligence could see that an accident was possible. APPLICABLE LAWS/ RELATED CASES

11.  The following closing statement explains why the court should rule in favor of Wilson. CONCLUSION

12.  "Drinking Free Home" Alcohol Abuse, 2011. Web. 12 March 2013.  "Bleacherreport" Football Injury, 2012. Web. 13 March 2013.  "Boat - ed" Blood Alcohol Concentration, 2013. Web. 13 March 2013. WORKS CITED