I feel like we all should agree on this one regardless of where we are with the truth claims of the Church

[Kenngo1969]

ItrT,

So, then, let's extend your logic to some conclusions that, nonetheless, are sensible and reasonable.  By the logic you have employed (such as it is), no member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is charged with one or more crimes should mount a defense.  (The Constitution begs to differ.)  Further, no member of the Church of Jesus Christ who is sued should mount a defense.  (I doubt the "legal contingent" of the Quorum of the Twelve, along with President Oaks, would agree.  I think it more than likely that each of them has participated in more than a few such defenses.)  You may say, "Well, such a prospective defendant should not mount a defense ... if he's guilty or if he's liable."   But such a contention puts the cart before the horse: Guilt and liability are determined in courts of law, by judges and/or by juries; it doesn't matter what anyone, a priori, "knows": It only matters what s/he can prove in a court of law.

And even accepting your recitation of the circumstances surrounding this incident as true for the sake of this discussion (notwithstanding the facts that: (1) I have certain serious reservations about that recitation; and (2) you have the enormous benefit of hindsight, and the question isn't what you "know" now, it's what the parties "knew" then), it may seem "just" to say, "Heavens, yes!  Anyone injured in circumstances similar to those under discussion should sue, and such a plaintiff is entitled to recover a substantial amount." 

But here's the thing: As the old adage says, "Money doesn't grow on trees."  Any payout has to come from somewhere.  To cite a similar example, when a government is a defendant, and when one of its agents is accused of alleged wrongdoing, it may feel enormously satisfying to say, "Heck, yes!  Stick it to the gub-munt!  It deserves it!"  But the thing is, when it comes to government liability, there is no "they" and "them": There's only us ... taxpayers.  Similarly, while some may take enormous satisfaction in "sticking it" to Brigham Young University and/or to its sponsor, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when it comes considering the prospect of these entities as defendants, there is no "they" and "them": There's only us ... tithe-payers.

[USU78]

On 5/15/2018 at 9:15 AM, mfbukowski said:

Clearly the cops are trying to hide the human sacrifices going on on campus.

I knew it.

[USU78]

On 5/15/2018 at 9:15 AM, mfbukowski said:

Clearly the cops are trying to hide the human sacrifices going on on campus.

I knew it.

[Is_this_really_True]

Dear Kenngo1969. Sorry, I am lost in your logic that goes to this conclusion about a defense. No one in my example was charged with a crime and thus needs a defense. Money, to me, is not on the table. Integrity is. If my tithing or taxes pays for someone’s mistake (not wrong doing, if the traffic cadet told the motorcycle and the car to go at the same time, that is a mistake, unless it was on purpose. I may not want her to have a job in that capacity anymore as this, to me, would be a serious lack of judgement and couple that with the police, we need good judgement people). Integrity mounts a defense against a false accusation by saying I did no wrong and here is why. Integrity also acknowledges when it is wrong. At least 2 possible scenarios. 1. Cadet, working for the BYU police force mistakenly told both to go and was a major contributing factor in the crash, then the cadet acknowledges the mistake and BYU say, yep she works for us and she made a mistake so here is a reasonable settlement. 2. Cadet didn’t tell the car to go but it went anyway and caused an accident. BYU says we are not at fault because the car did not obey the cadet. No settlement.  Now anyone can sue anyone, so in #1 if he sues because of the amount then BYU should mount a defense and have a reason why, #2, they are being unfairly accused and mount the defense that it was not their fault. Instead BYU defense is “You filed in the wrong place”, not that you are suing the wrong person or entity. To me, this just says “I am going to try and get out of this any way I can no matter my actual responsibility”. Maybe the motorcyclist went to BYU and said hey, your cadet caused and accident & BYU disagreed. Fine. Mount the defense of BYU on the merits of why they are not at fault, not the way they are doing it. To me, it just speaks poorly of them as an institution as a standard to the world. Don’t be like the world.

Your statement “Guilt and liability are determined in courts of law, by judges and/or by juries; it doesn't matter what anyone, a priori, "knows": It only matters what s/he can prove in a court of law.” Disturbs me a little. Guilt is usually known immediately or is soon known after the facts are known. Someone may feel guilt initially but realize they did the best they could. The cadet may feel guilty for the crash and then when the facts come out that the car intentionally went forward anyway, she will realize that she was not responsible. What one knows is the most important thing, then integrity steps in and the person accepts responsibility for their or their company’s actions or inactions. I have acknowledged my limited knowledge and certainly can change my stance based on more knowledge.

In the end, the plaintiff is only entitled to damages to them in the amount that equals their non-involvement in the crash. Did the motorcycle speed, no do due diligence and look both ways before entering the street, etc. In my investigations of incidents, I have mostly found that there is responsibility on everyone. If they don’t agree on the amount, sure let that courts have a say but only after the parties all got together and went over the facts and owned up to their part.  Some of this is a priori, theoretical. I believe that starts the discussion so that people can learn and then change. We may continue to disagree and that is ok. All parties should try to keep it civil, respectful and stick to the facts the believe or know. Thanks for the comments. I appreciate them.

[smac97]

On 7/22/2018 at 8:45 PM, Is_this_really_True said:

SMAC97

Maybe it is too simple for me.

Legal issues such as this are often not simple.  There are a lot of complex and interwoven issues to sort out.

Quote

Lets take the Mallory Case. As I read the Supreme Court case and its non-detailed accident account, I can only guess at a few thing. The appeals court documents I believe support some of my assumptions. Facts as I believe them. 1. Mallory was on a motorcycle and stopped in a parking lot. 2. Traffic cadet Robinson directed Mallory to turn left onto University Ave (Supreme Court description of street). 3. Mallory was injured in a collision with a car due to turning onto the street.

There may be many things missing here, I don't have and cannot find, (after googling several times for Mallory, suing BYU, traffic accident, etc.) the police report to see what was written down and even then it may not describe all of the facts. Think recent police reports on shootings and how folks change their stories a little each time they talk about it.

Here's the factual summary from Mallory:

Quote

On April 12, 2008, after a football game, Mallory was waiting on his motorcycle to enter a public street from a BYU parking lot. Robinson, acting as a BYU traffic cadet, directed Mallory to make a left turn onto University Avenue. Upon entering University Avenue, Mallory's motorcycle and an automobile driven by Vern Stratton collided. Mallory suffered serious bodily injury and incurred economic damages as a result of the accident.

Mallory later sued BYU (and others).  The key issue in that case was the validity of an "affirmative defense" presented by BYU, to wit:

Quote

Plaintiff's claims are barred by Utah Code Title 63G, Chapter 7. The Defendant Robinson was at all times pertinent to the Plaintiff's Complaint, an agent of Provo City, State of Utah. No Notice of Claim has been filed with, nor served upon, Provo City, regarding the Plaintiff's claims.

Utah Code Ann. sec. 63G-7-101 (referenced above) pertains to governmental immunity (government actors being immune from lawsuits under certain circumstances).  If X wants to sue Y, and Y is an "agent" of the government (in this case, the government of Provo City), then X has to file a "Notice of Claim" with the government entity (again, Provo City).  In this case, X (Mallory) failed to do that.  This led to a lot of argument about whether Robinson was, for legal purposes, an "agent" of Provo City (if he was, the lawsuit could continue, if he was not, the lawsuit could not continue).  

The trial court found as follows:

Quote

The trial court [] concluded that “{b}ecause Robinson was directing traffic under color of Provo City's authority, she is an employee of Provo City who is entitled to governmental immunity under the [GIAU].” Consequently, the trial court ruled that Mallory's failure to file a notice of claim as required by the GIAU “strip[ped it] of subject matter jurisdiction.” On October 25, 2010, the trial court entered an Order and Final Judgment dismissing the claims against Defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Mallory filed a timely appeal.

Mallory's appeal addressed three issues, only one of which is relevant here:

Quote

Mallory argues [in his appeal] that the trial court erred in granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. “Compliance with the [Utah Governmental] Immunity Act is a prerequisite to vesting a district court with subject matter jurisdiction over claims against governmental entities. Accordingly, a district court's dismissal of a case based on governmental immunity is a determination of law that we afford no deference.” Wheeler v. McPherson, 2002 UT 16, ¶ 9, 40 P.3d 632 (citations omitted) (interpreting the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (the UGIA), the predecessor statute to the GIAU).

Here's how the Utah Court of Appeals summed things up BYU's position:

Quote

[The defendants, including BYU] contend that because Robinson, as an employee of BYU, was authorized by ordinance to direct post-event traffic, they are both entitled to immunity based on the Provo City ordinance. See Provo City, Utah, Code § 9.10.060(2)-(3) (2012). In particular, Defendants argue that they were acting as servants or agents of Provo City. See Utah Code Ann. § 63G–7–102(2)(a)(i), –201(1) (2011 & Supp.2012) (granting immunity from suit to government Employees, including “servants,” when performing a “governmental function”).

The city code (available online here) provides as follows (emphases added):

Quote

9.10.060. Traffic Control by Non-Peace Officers.

(1) Subject to the limitations described in Subsection (3) of this Section a person who is employed by Provo City and is not a peace officer may direct traffic on public streets while under the supervision of a peace officer employed by Provo City.

(2) Subject to the limitations described in Subsection (3) of this Section a person who is employed by a college or university and is not a peace officer may direct traffic on public streets while under the supervision of a peace officer employed by the same college or university.

(3) A non-peace officer may direct traffic as described in Subsections (1) and (2) of this Section only in cases of public emergency or to aid in the orderly movement of traffic related to public gatherings in excess of 5,000 people.

(4) It shall be unlawful for the driver of a motor vehicle to fail or refuse to obey the directions of a non-peace officer directing traffic as permitted in this Section. (Enacted 1990-20)

So to sum up:

A) BYU argued that Robinson, functioning as a "BYU traffic cadet"  was a "person who is employed by a college or university and is not a peace officer" directing traffic within the meaning of the above statute.

B) BYU argued that the above statute brought Robinson under the provisions of the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah ("GIAU").

C) BYU asserted that "BYU traffic cadets" are trained by BYU PD.  

D) A supporting affidavit ("Affidavit of Police Officer") regarding the above point was submitted to the trial court.  The Court of Appeals, having reviewed this affidavit, held:

Quote

This evidence appears sufficient to support the conclusion that Robinson's direction of traffic was supervised by a BYU peace officer, and was therefore permitted by the ordinance. However, it is insufficient to show whether Defendants were acting as servants, rather than independent contractors, of Provo City, and were therefore Employees covered by the GIAU.  The record before us provides no information about the control, if any, exercised by Provo City over the manner in which Defendants performed traffic control activities. For example, the record does not establish whether Provo City had any role in developing BYU's traffic direction program, provided any oversight of that program, or imposed requirements for the hiring, training, or supervision of cadets.  As a result, there is insufficient evidence to establish whether Defendants were acting as Employees of Provo City.

Accordingly, we conclude that the case was dismissed prematurely and remand to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether Defendants are entitled to the protections of the GIAU.  If the trial court determines that Provo City did not retain control over Defendants, then the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Otherwise, the GIAU and its notice of claim provision applies.

E) The case was sent back to the trial court, where it was dismissed via summary judgment because the Mallory failed to prosecute the case, and also failed to establish causation (between Robinson's conduct and the accident).

As I see it, Mallory has virtually nothing to do with the current lawsuit by the Trib against BYU regarding whether BYU PD is subject to GRAMA.

Quote

Regardless of the court filing and deadlines and with whom he should have filed and when, the facts as i see then, are he followed a BYU traffic cadets directions and was injured by following her direction.

Sorry, but you can't say "regardless" about legally relevant points of law and fact and then ask me to qualitatively address your perspective.  If you want to address a legal dispute, you must address the law that governs it.

Quote

By the court case pleadings, BYU is saying, "this is not our fault even though it was caused by one of our people" or worse yet to me "it is our fault but we are not to blame because the claim was not filed properly".

Nope, that is not what BYU is saying.  BYU did not address "fault" at all in Mallory.

Quote

BYU appears not take responsibility for the actions of its personnel.

BYU did not address "responsibility for the actions of its personnel" in Mallory.

By the way, did you read the final judgment in Mallory?  I did.  It appears that BYU was dropped from the case prior to its ultimate conclusion (in which summary judgment was granted in favor of Mr. Stratton, the motorist who struck Mallory).  I wonder if that is because . . . BYU settled with Mr. Mallory?  That's my guess.  If so, then BYU did "take responsibility for the actions of its personnel."

Quote

I remember an Apostle giving a general conference talk or maybe it was a BYU talk I heard, about a time when he was a lawyer and was represent a time when 2 partners were dissolving a company and on partner positioned himself, via lawyers, to make more money on the sale that the other partner, represented by the GA. His comments were that we should treat each other honestly.

A true sentiment.  I agree with it. 

And nothing in Mallory suggests that BYU and/or the LDS Church did not treat Mr. Mallory "honestly."

Quote

To me this is not honest and the GA's have direct authority over BYU.

With respect, I invite you to spend more time investigating the Mallory case.  Nothing in it suggests that BYU was "not honest" in addressing Mr. Mallory's claims.

Nothing.  At all.

Quote

So this is what the GA's are saying to me, "It is our fault but we are not taking responsibility because the law allows us to."

No general authority in the LDS Church has said or implied anything even close to what you are attributing to them.  

You are bearing false witness.  I encourage you not to do that.

Legal arguments pertaining to whether governmental immunity should apply to a BYU traffic cadet cannot, under any reasonable viewing, be construed as morphing into the above nasty statement you are falsely attributing to the general authorities of the LDS Church.

Quote

Now, does this reasoning have echos of other cases the church is facing or has faced in the past?  

What "reasoning" are you talking about?  You haven't provided any of your own.  And the only thing you have provided is a fabricated and false statement which you are unfairly and ignorantly attributing to the leaders of the LDS Church.

Quote

If I have gotten any of this incorrect, please let me know.

Just about everything you've "gotten" about Mallory and how BYU and the LDS Church behaved in relation thereto is "incorrect." 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 25, 2018 by smac97

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Just about everything you've "gotten" about Mallory and how BYU and the LDS Church behaved in relation thereto is "incorrect." 

Thanks,

-Smac

In other words:

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Is_this_really_True said:

Dear Kenngo1969. Sorry, I am lost in your logic that goes to this conclusion about a defense. No one in my example was charged with a crime and thus needs a defense. Money, to me, is not on the table. Integrity is.

Attributing recklessly (maliciously?) false statements/sentiments to the general authorities of the Church, as you have done here, is not an example of "integrity."  Just sayin'...

Quote

If my tithing or taxes pays for someone’s mistake (not wrong doing, if the traffic cadet told the motorcycle and the car to go at the same time, that is a mistake, unless it was on purpose. I may not want her to have a job in that capacity anymore as this, to me, would be a serious lack of judgement and couple that with the police, we need good judgement people). Integrity mounts a defense against a false accusation by saying I did no wrong and here is why.

Meh.  BYU filed a motion to dismiss on a technical legal issue.  That's all.

Mr. Mallory thereafter stopped suing BYU, as evidenced by it being listed as a "dismissed" party in the court docket.  To me, this rather strongly suggests that Mr. Mallory entered into a negotiated settlement with BYU.

Quote

Integrity also acknowledges when it is wrong.

Such as when a defamatory statement is shown to be factually incorrect or reckless and suspect?  Is an acknowledgement appropriate then?

"Integrity" would also seem to include refraining from making ignorant and false accusations against others, including the general authorities of the LDS Church.  

Quote

At least 2 possible scenarios. 1. Cadet, working for the BYU police force mistakenly told both to go and was a major contributing factor in the crash, then the cadet acknowledges the mistake and BYU say, yep she works for us and she made a mistake so here is a reasonable settlement.

Mallory lost his case against the motorist by failing to establish causation.  And Mallory apparently settled with BYU.

Quote

2. Cadet didn’t tell the car to go but it went anyway and caused an accident. BYU says we are not at fault because the car did not obey the cadet. No settlement.  Now anyone can sue anyone, so in #1 if he sues because of the amount then BYU should mount a defense and have a reason why, #2, they are being unfairly accused and mount the defense that it was not their fault. Instead BYU defense is “You filed in the wrong place”, not that you are suing the wrong person or entity. To me, this just says “I am going to try and get out of this any way I can no matter my actual responsibility”. Maybe the motorcyclist went to BYU and said hey, your cadet caused and accident & BYU disagreed. Fine. Mount the defense of BYU on the merits of why they are not at fault, not the way they are doing it. To me, it just speaks poorly of them as an institution as a standard to the world. Don’t be like the world.

BYU apparently settled with Mallory.

Speaking from a position of substantial ignorance (and perhaps malice?) when publicly disparaging the integrity of others also speaks poorly of a person, wouldn't you say?

Quote

Your statement “Guilt and liability are determined in courts of law, by judges and/or by juries; it doesn't matter what anyone, a priori, "knows": It only matters what s/he can prove in a court of law.” Disturbs me a little. Guilt is usually known immediately or is soon known after the facts are known. Someone may feel guilt initially but realize they did the best they could. The cadet may feel guilty for the crash and then when the facts come out that the car intentionally went forward anyway, she will realize that she was not responsible. What one knows is the most important thing, then integrity steps in and the person accepts responsibility for their or their company’s actions or inactions. I have acknowledged my limited knowledge and certainly can change my stance based on more knowledge.

Great.  Having given you more knowledge about the Mallory matter, I hope you retract your appalling slurs directed against the leaders of the LDS Church.

Quote

In the end, the plaintiff is only entitled to damages to them in the amount that equals their non-involvement in the crash. Did the motorcycle speed, no do due diligence and look both ways before entering the street, etc. In my investigations of incidents, I have mostly found that there is responsibility on everyone. If they don’t agree on the amount, sure let that courts have a say but only after the parties all got together and went over the facts and owned up to their part.  Some of this is a priori, theoretical. I believe that starts the discussion so that people can learn and then change. We may continue to disagree and that is ok. All parties should try to keep it civil, respectful and stick to the facts the believe or know. 

There was nothing civil in you publicly attacking the honesty and integrity of the leaders of the LDS Church.

-Smac

Edited July 25, 2018 by smac97

[Kenngo1969]

Double-post.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, Is_this_really_True said:

Dear Kenngo1969. Sorry, I am lost in your logic that goes to this conclusion about a defense. No one in my example was charged with a crime and thus needs a defense.

True enough, as far as it goes, but the same principle applies in both the civil and the criminal realm.  If a person wishes to contest a criminal charge which is filed against him, he is entitled to do so, even if he is a Latter-day Saint.  He is entitled to make a prosecutor prove every element of every crime charged by the relevant legal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt).   If a person wishes to contest  a civil lawsuit or which has been filed against him, he is entitled to do so, even if he is a Latter-day Saint.  He is entitled to make a plaintiff prove every element of the relevant cause(s) of action by the relevant legal standard (by a preponderance of the evidence, in most cases).  He does not forego those rights simply because he is a Latter-day Saint, and no tenet of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ dictates that he must.

Quote

Money, to me, is not on the table. Integrity is.

OK.    I'm glad you do not serve on the Council on the Disposition of the Tithe.  And "Integrity" cuts more than one way: I would venture to say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and many of its associated entities offer settlements even in cases which it should win.  Why?  Because litigating cases costs money even when a party wins. Often, litigation is expensive no matter what.  Is offering to settle even when a party may not be liable (or when that party doesn't think an opponent can prove liability) also indicative of a lack of integrity?

I'm not licensed and, thus, cannot and do not dispense legal advice, but, informally, I've had people approach me who are contemplating suing someone.  And invariably, when I tell them, "Well, the first thing you're going to have to do is come up with a filing fee ..." generally, they stop me there and ask, "Wait.  You're telling me that I might have to shell out money just to get into court?"  (A lot of these folks are of such limited means that a court would probably grant them leave to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning that the filing fee, and perhaps other fees, would be waived, but still ...)  And I tell them, "Yep."  No matter how you slice it or how many corners you might try to cut to save time or money, litigation is expensive (again, even when a party wins: Even if a court awards fees and costs to a defendant, oftentimes, even a sizeable award of that type isn't enough to put a defendant in the same position he was in before the suit was filed: to pay legal costs, he's already lost the house, lost the car, lost other possessions, raided his IRA or 401(k), raided his children's mission or college funds, and so on.

Quote

If my tithing or taxes pays for someone’s mistake (not wrong doing, if the traffic cadet told the motorcycle and the car to go at the same time, that is a mistake, unless it was on purpose. I may not want her to have a job in that capacity anymore as this, to me, would be a serious lack of judgement and couple that with the police, we need good judgement people).

This is a fragment, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.  In any event, you seem to be equating all mistakes with a serious lack of judgment.  They're not the same thing.

Quote

Integrity mounts a defense against a false accusation by saying I did no wrong and here is why. Integrity also acknowledges when it is wrong.

You're treating the three concepts here (integrity, falsehood, and potential wrongdoing) as though they are self-evident, if not in every case, then at least in this case.  And I refuse to accept your arbitrary definition of integrity.  As much as I share your preference for "bright-line" rules that, "This, clearly, is indicative of integrity, while that, clearly, is not," an accusation may be unfair without being out-and-out false.  According to your arbitrary definition of "integrity," however, I must accept an accusation I think is unfair simply because, on its face, it is not false.

[Continued in a subsequent post.]

Edited July 25, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, Is_this_really_True said:

...To me, it just speaks poorly of them as an institution as a standard to the world. Don’t be like the world.

The implicit commandment, "Thou shalt be a doormat when thou art hauled into court" is only in your idiosyncratic canon.  It isn't found anywhere in the entire canon of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  On the other hand, Christ did teach that His followers should, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's."  And He did teach that His followers should be, "Wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

Quote

Your statement “Guilt and liability are determined in courts of law, by judges and/or by juries; it doesn't matter what anyone, a priori, "knows": It only matters what s/he can prove in a court of law.” Disturbs me a little.

Then you're apt to be greatly disturbed by a great many things, because that is precisely how the United States legal system works.

Quote

Guilt is usually known immediately or is soon known after the facts are known.

Au contraire!  Who are these Magical Faeries who (instantaneously, it seems) magically and without any investigation or deliberation know "the facts"?  You seem to be suggesting here that such things as investigation, deliberation, pretrial discovery, and so on can be dispensed with in favor of parties, automagically and a priori, knowing "the facts."  

In large part, the very reason why the United States legal system exists and operates as it does is to determine guilt or liability, on the one hand, and innocence, on the other.  The very purposes for investigation, pretrial discovery, and other non-trial measures, along with trials, is to discover "the facts."  If a case goes to trial, the very reason for the jury's existence is to determine "the facts." The jury weighs the evidence, including credibility of witnesses, and reaches a verdict, ideally, one which is based on "the facts."   (Witness "W" can say "A-sub-1" through "Z-sub-infinity," but all of his declarations, worlds without end, are of little value until the jury deems him credible: that is, until the jury determines what "the facts" are.) 

Quote

Someone may feel guilt initially but realize they did the best they could. The cadet may feel guilty for the crash and then when the facts come out that the car intentionally went forward anyway, she will realize that she was not responsible. What one knows is the most important thing, then integrity steps in and the person accepts responsibility for their or their company’s actions or inactions. I have acknowledged my limited knowledge and certainly can change my stance based on more knowledge.

Somehow,  you"know," a priori and with scarcely any knowledge of the facts of this case, as you, yourself admit, that the cadet, BYU, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are liable.  Amazing!  

Quote

In the end, the plaintiff is only entitled to damages to them in the amount that equals their non-involvement in the crash.

That doesn't really make any sense: Whether I crash into someone else or someone else crashes into me, I've been "involved" in a crash.

Quote

Did the motorcycle speed, no do due diligence and look both ways before entering the street, etc.

And such facts as those are unlikely to be known without investigation, discovery, questioning of witnesses, review of the scene, knowledge of weather conditions, et cetera.  And if someone accuses me of wrongdoing, there is absolutely nothing improper about my insisting that such investigation and discovery be engaged in before reaching any sort of conclusion, especially a legal conclusion, about whether I am at fault.

Quote

In my investigations of incidents, I have mostly found that there is responsibility on everyone.

Unless one of the parties involved is Brigham Young University, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or someone who may (or may not be) acting as an agent of BYU?

Quote

If they don’t agree on the amount, sure let that courts have a say but only after the parties all got together and went over the facts and owned up to their part. 

Mmm-kay.  What if one party is simply looking for a "deep pocket," a "deep pocket," which, if we follow your logic, isn't entitled to defend itself?

Quote

 All parties should try to keep it civil, respectful and stick to the facts the believe or know. Thanks for the comments. I appreciate them.

I find your exhortation that we should attempt to "stick to the facts" ironic, given your apparent ignorance of how the U.S. legal system works.  It's almost as if you're saying, "The rest of you should 'stick to the facts,' while, conversely, I am entitled to traffic in unfounded and ill-founded allegations, et cetera."