Editor:

In my group, everybody is above the age of 25. So, I assume that everybody is very experienced in life compared to the "traditional" age group. However, I found that they are not very experienced in matters of business and law. I, on the other hand, have been counseled by professionals- lawyers and successful business people. So, I will try to convince my group and the readers that the Spiegler family justly deserves the $5 million award.

Let's get one thing straight. The University of Arizona is an nonprofit, government-owned business. It is not a branch of the government. It is, however, subsidized by the government. Therefore, every law that pertains to business, including liability laws, applies. No waiver of liability was signed by Ms. Spiegler or any of the students. Every full-time student paid the mandatory fee of $24. We, the consumers, have every right to go into the Rec Center to use the equipment and facilities offered, despite any pre-existing health condition. This means the UA is responsible for our health when its clients are on the Rec Center property.

To protect the business and to lower the potential liabilities, the UA has the right to refuse any clients by simply refunding their $24. The university should ask for any pre-existing health condition that would cause problems. The client is not obligated to tell. In the case of Ms. Spiegler, the University didn't ask, didn't care, but made absolutely sure she paid all her fees, including the mandatory $24 fee. The $24 fee is mandatory, for the thousandth time. Many people said that it was her own free will to go inside the Rec Center and use the machine. So what? That argument is immaterial. What is material is that we, the consumers, had to pay the fee or face the consequences of not being registered for class. Sounds like legalized extortion. Therefore, we, the consumers, including Ms. Spiegler are obligated to use the Rec Center machines with heart condition or no heart condition. If you paid the $24 fee and don't plan to step one foot inside the Rec Center all semester, you have wasted $24. Many people including myself hate to waste money!

I'm not going into the details of the case. The more and more I think about this, the more points come up to build the plaintiff's case. These three points are not arguable and are the absolute facts: 1) No waiver of liability was signed by the clients, 2) the right to refuse clients was not used and 3) no choice was given in the matter of paying the fee.

I can't see how the university attorneys can possibly defend against these three points. If the school continues the same practice, there will be another tragic accident or incident with another indefensible law suit. The attorneys should have settled out of court.

Most of the sources came from the Small Business Association. Liability is not something to ignore. Many business owners turned their privately-owned businesses to C or S corporations to protect the owner's or owners' private assets. Most businesses have liability insurance to protect the business' assets.

I never saw the present condition of Ms. Spiegler. I have no personal feelings for her. Yet I feel that the university is legally responsible for her present condition. If Ms. Spiegler's family asked for $50 million, they would most likely be awarded the money due to the reasons above.

To all of you still not convinced, don't go outside! If a car hits you while you're on the crosswalk, and you're bleeding and in extreme pain, don't tell me you're not going to sue, and don't tell me it was your own fault. You're full of it!

Jay Yoon

chemistry junior

Jay Yoon
Chemistry junior