Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Ames
I'm saying I don't think it's unreasonable for UA to anticipate a possible lawsuit from the fiance' alleging that UA was negligent in allowing Petrino to hire his mistress in violation of civil service rules (if applicable) or UA policy while knowing (or should have known) that the mistress was engaged to another employee of the athletic department. Fayetteville is a pretty small place, and it would not be surprising if a sharp lawyer could find potential witnesses who knew about the affair prior to the accident.
IANAL and don't know if such a suit would be successful in establishing liability and damages. However, I do know that there are lots of lawyers looking for work these days.
You are very confused.
The dude wasn't even married to Petrino's mistress. So all of your advanced legal reasoning is moot.
Even if he was married it's very unlikely that the school could somehow be liable for Petrino hiring his mistress. How did that hire harm the fiance? Also, before you were saying they might be liable for alienation of affection. That wasn't the school's doing and that happened before the hiring even took place. How is the hiring of the mistress suddenly the tort?
Assuming you are still talking about alienation of affection, how would the affair itself be ruled in the scope of Petrino's employment? I doubt the school paid Petrino to have sex with it's other employees.
Lack of work or not, lawyers cannot file claims with no legal basis.