My Take on Risk Management.

1.) I do not believe negligence was demonstrated in this articles. From what we learned in class about negligence as being an unitentional tort that injures an individual in person, porperty or reputation, I do not beleive either article could justify having the right to claim negliegence over the facility. In the Popke article, there are obvious dangers that come with this sport, and although coaches werep resent during the practice, these were normal drills that were being run, that parents and the participants knew there could be potenital consequences if something were too go wrong. If the parents or participants thought it was too dangerous, then they simply should not have taken part in the sport. The Popke accident was very unfortunate, but something that people knew could happen, and that everyone knew about the risks at all times.
2.) I believe that the staff needs to be aware of potential dangers its respective facility could cause, and if there is a problem the result of negligence should occur. Say a ceiling fan was becoming more unstable as it worked to cool down its members, and it was an obvious problem that the staff knew about. Althought the staff knew about the problem, they believed it was not a big issue on wouild be resolved later. Unfortunately, the fan did end up coming down and striking a member of the facility. This would obviously result in a negligence act against the facility and its employers/owners. Risk management should always be of top concern when constructing a facility, and all potenital dangers should be targeted as things the staff will need to do to try and eliminate the fact they are “potential” dangers.