text:
Support independent, student-run journalism.
Your support helps give staff members from all backgrounds the opportunity to conduct meaningful reporting on important issues at Stanford. All contributions are tax-deductible.
Support the Daily
$5 $10 $25 $50 $100 $500 $1,000
Make my donation a monthly donation.
High School Summer Internship
Men's Water Polo
Men's Gymnastics
Men's Swimming & Diving
Women's Gymnastics
Women's Swimming & Diving
Men's Rowing
Women's Lightweight Rowing
Women's Rowing
Women's Water Polo
Letters to the Community
Critic's Pick
Wednesday Roundtable: Will Stanford football's performance this season affect recruiting?
Andrus Peat (right)
by David Cohn — November 11, 2014 2 Comments
After four straight double-digit win seasons, Stanford football will be on the wrong side of the 10-win mark – and possibly by a wide margin – for the first time since 2009. We asked football writers Joseph Beyda, Vihan Lakshman and David Cohn: Will Stanford's dip in performance this season have a profound impact on recruiting?
David: While the Cardinal will not represent the Pac-12 North in the Pac-12 Championship Game for the first time in three years, the foundations of the program remain strong, so I do not expect this season to have a profound impact on recruiting. This is because the Card continue to develop players at its historically strong positions. In particular, the emergence of the three sophomore tight ends in Greg Taboada, Austin Hooper and Eric Cotton in their first seasons on the field will mean that the Farm will continue to be Tight End U.
Junior offensive lineman Andrus Peat (right) figures to be a high draft pick in the NFL Draft when his Cardinal career ends. In addition to Peat, several offensive linemen, including David Yankey, David DeCastro and Cam Flemming, all developed during their times on the Farm into NFL players. (SAM GIRVIN/The Stanford Daily)
While the offensive line, as a unit, has had an up-and-down season on the field, the Card's placement of David Yankey, Cameron Fleming, David DeCastro, Jonathan Martin and others in the NFL, as well as the development of Andrus Peat into a Day 1 NFL draft prospect, will still hold weight with the best offensive line recruits in the nation. Stanford already has two four star commitments on the offensive line for 2015 in recruits Brian Chaffin and Nick Wilson, and I imagine that the Card will continue to be active and successful in recruiting offensive linemen to the Farm.
I could go through the other position groups one-by-one, but I think that the takeaway message in recruiting for Stanford is development. More specifically, the Cardinal program continues to be successful in developing its players, helping them improve toward achieving their professional goals both in the NFL and outside of football. As long as those two facts hold true, Stanford will continue to recruit at a high level, namely because of its preeminent position as one of the best academic institutions in the world, with four BCS Bowl appearances, two Pac-12 titles, and with one more win, six straight bowl berths in recent years.
Joseph: I'm not quite as optimistic as David. Bumps in the road — whether a bad season, a change in coaching staffs or NCAA sanctions — threaten recruiting for basically every program in the nation, save for the USCs and SEC powers of the world. Stanford has certainly established staying power with recruits over the last five years or so, but this mind-boggling season is bound to test that success at least somewhat.
Now, in the long run, there are a lot of things for Stanford to feel good about on the recruiting trail. Slips by other football programs at strong academic schools (Vanderbilt, Northwestern, UCLA) this season still make the Farm a very competitive option for elite athletes who are interested in getting a great education. The Cardinal also continued to recruit at a very high level after the transition from Jim Harbaugh to the then-first-time head coach David Shaw, perhaps indicating that their target audience isn't as fickle as the average high school senior.
In the next class or two, however, we shouldn't be surprised if there's a dip. Just imagine a recruit choosing between Stanford and ASU, or Stanford and Oregon, who took an official visit to Tempe or Eugene the weekend the Cardinal were run out of town. Watching those games, any recruit's faith in Stanford would be shaken.
Vihan: Ben Gardner, two-star recruit. Doug Baldwin, two-star recruit. Chase Thomas, three-star recruit. Zach Ertz and Coby Fleener, three star recruits. Trent Murphy, three-star recruit. And the list goes on and on.
Stanford didn't rise to the upper echelons of college football by waking up one day and suddenly hauling in truckloads of blue-chip prospects. Jim Harbaugh, David Shaw and the rest of the coaching staff identified smart, underrated players with chips on their shoulders and watched them develop into NFL talent.
Recruiting is absolutely crucial — there is no doubt about that. Stanford definitely wouldn't be the same without the likes of touted prospects like Andrew Luck, Ty Montgomery or Andrus Peat, but there is a reason we don't hand out championship trophies on National Signing Day. This season was supposed to be the year that Stanford's record-setting 2012 recruiting class seized the spotlight, but success hasn't really materialized the way some envisioned.
Will Stanford's recent struggles lead to a dip in recruiting? I think that's a certainty, but it won't be the end of the world. It certainly wasn't just a few years ago. The fact is that Stanford can win football games by finding players who fit the program's mentality. It's never easy, but the Stanford coaching staffs of the late 2000s could recruit and develop current NFL talent despite mediocre records.
Joey makes a great point about Stanford recruiting targets losing faith after watching a couple of those rough road performances. I don't think it's a coincidence that Canton Kaumatule (brother of Luke) committed to Oregon a day after his official visit to Eugene, when he watched the Ducks crush Stanford at Autzen Stadium. Bad losses will hurt, sometimes for a long time.
Overall, though, I feel pretty optimistic about Stanford's recruiting future. The Cardinal's recent success should still entice many of the nation's top recruits, and the coaching staff has shown a knack for finding the next Gardners, Murphys and Baldwins, underrated players with winning attitudes. That's what Stanford recruiting has really been about.
With the this less than stellar state of Stanford football, The Stanford Daily's football writers have no choice but to either be optimistic towards the future or to berate the current team for its shortfalls. In this instance, optimism, has won. Share your optimistic v. pessimistic attitudes toward the team with David Cohn, Joseph Beyda and Vihan Lakshman at dmcohn 'at' stanford.edu, jbeyda 'at' stanford.edu and vihan 'at' stanford.edu.
While you're here...
We're a student-run organization committed to providing hands-on experience in journalism, digital media and business for the next generation of reporters.
Your support makes a difference in helping give staff members from all backgrounds the opportunity to develop important professional skills and conduct meaningful reporting. All contributions are tax-deductible.
$5$10$25$50$100$500$1,000
Tags:Andrus PeatBen GardnerCameron FlemmingChase ThomasCoby FleenerDavid DeCastroDavid YankeyDoug BaldwinJonathan MartinStanford footballTrent MurphyZach Ertz\
David Cohn
David Cohn '15 is currently a Sports Desk Editor. He began his tenure at the Daily by serving as a senior staff writer for Stanford football and softball, and then rose to the position of assistant editor of staff development. He served as the Summer Managing Editor of Sports in 2014. David is a Biology major from Poway, California. In addition to his duties at the Daily, he serves as the lead play-by-play football and softball announcer for KZSU Live Stanford Radio 90.1 FM.
© 2019 The Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation.
Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme by TSD Tech Team
Privacy Policy | Mobile App
Support The Stanford Daily when you shop on Amazon.


text:
The Fizzy Math Behind Bloomberg's Soda Ban
New York City's proposed ban on sodas greater than 16 ounces rests on shaky premises. But proponents think those trump "trivial issues of personal freedom".
Baylen Linnekin | 7.21.2012 1:00 PM
On Tuesday the New York City Department of Mental Health and Hygiene will hold a public hearing on Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to ban the sale in the city of sweetened beverages greater than 16 ounces. The ban would impact drinks containing sugar or any other "caloric sweetener," which could include everything from a 20 ounce bottle of soda sold by a food truck or cart to a soda sweetened with high fructose corn syrup sold by a fast food restaurant to an iced tea sweetened with honey sold by a baseball-park vendor.
I'll be speaking in opposition to the ban at the hearing—on behalf of the members and supporters of the nonprofit I lead, Keep Food Legal—for two main reasons. First, the ban would restrict food freedom of choice. In this way it's no different than several other New York City food-related bans dreamt up by Mayor Bloomberg's administration that I noted in an earlier Reason column on the soda ban. A partial list of these bans includes a proposal to restrict new tavern licenses, a suggested ban on happy hours, a ban on food donations to homeless shelters, an attempt to limit restaurants' use of salt, and a trans fat ban.
The second reason the ban is a bad idea is that it rests on bad assumptions. It's this latter argument that particularly interests me here.
For one, the justification for the proposed rule appears to rest largely on a claim that Americans are obese because we "consume 200-300 more calories daily than 30 years ago, with the largest single increase due to sugary drinks." But nothing in the one citation on which that claim is based, a 2005 article in the Annual Review of Public Health, directly supports this bold claim.
Rather, the authors of that study looked at the results of five earlier studies that showed "caloric intake rose by roughly 12% (300 calories per day) between 1985 and 2000, mainly because of increased consumption of grains, added fats, and added sugars."
The closest the researchers get to validating the basis of the New York City health department's proposed rule is when they note an "increased consumption of carbohydrates" in the form of "fruit and soft drinks, [which] are also responsible for a surprising number of calories." But the authors then immediately cite other research that pegs "increased snacking" (with no mention of soda) as the main factor behind increased caloric intake. What's more, the ARPH authors conclude that neither soda nor sugar nor carbohydrates but "technology may be primarily responsible for the obesity epidemic."
Other ban opponents have also cited data that throws the entire basis and purpose of the proposed ban into question.
"From 1999 to 2010, full-calorie soda sales declined 12.5% while obesity rates went up," notes New Yorkers for Beverage Choices, a group that opposes the ban. "According to the CDC, added sugars consumed from sugar sweetened beverages are down 39% thanks in part to more low- and zero-calorie choices."
The ban does have its supporters. But the comments the Mayor's office has posted so far trumpeting support for the ban are informative.
One commenter, Rowan University Prof. Lawrence Weisberg, MD, claims the positive impact the ban will have will far outweigh "trivial issues of personal freedom" the ban raises.
Another commenter, Dr. Joseph Vassalotti of the National Kidney Foundation, refers only to the Mayor's general campaign against obesity and doesn't mention the soda ban at all—nor, indeed, does Vassalotti mention beverages. And the National Kidney Foundation (nor anyone else, for that matter) apparently didn't even see fit to tout the statement at its own website.
Others supporting the ban include filmmaker Spike Lee (who argues, among other things, that "[c]hildren today in public schools across the country are not being taught art"), author Eric Schlosser ("Soda isn't food."), and Jamie Oliver ("[W]e are way past the point where can trust people to make better choices. We have to help them make better choices.").
Other data provided by the city health department in support of the ban doesn't exactly build a case for it. For example, according to a chart featured in a recent health department presentation in support of the proposed ban, a 16 ounce large soda has not been the norm at McDonald's since the 1960s—well before obesity rates began to climb in America.
With all the evidence against the ban, one would think ban opponents would have at least a fighting chance to halt the ban in its tracks. But some aren't so sure.
"When it's been pre-decreed by Bloomberg and Health Commissioner Thomas Farley and the hearing board members are all, well, on board, let alone full of Bloomberg[] appointees, then what we have is a theatrical production, not a hearing," writes Audrey Silk at the Huffington Post. Silk argues that the hearing is just keeping up appearances for what she says will follow—rubber-stamp legislating by an unelected board of Bloomberg appointees.
Is this all a big Kabuki dance? I hope not. And I'll be disappointed if it is. And I'll probably be in need of some liquid refreshment.
Luckily New York City still has many such places offering sustenance to weary travelers. And at one such place, the acclaimed Northern Spy restaurant in the East Village, Keep Food Legal will be holding a happy hour (beer, wine, and cocktail specials!) and soda salon following the public hearing on Tuesday.
"Northern Spy is proud to host the Keep Food Legal Happy Hour because we believe in a robust and open debate on food policy and access issues," says co-owner Christophe Hille. "We think that any time one group in a position of power dictates limits on what another group may consume, it's worth at least being skeptical."
Learn more about the happy hour and soda salon here. After all, you're invited. And as an added incentive, we'll be giving away one $50 gift certificate to Northern Spy to a random Keep Food Legal member (existing or new) in attendance.
If you can't make it to the happy hour and you'd like to submit comments of your own related to the proposed soda ban—something Keep Food Legal will be doing—you may do so here before Tuesday's 5 p.m. deadline.
Baylen J. Linnekin, a lawyer, is executive director of Keep Food Legal, a Washington, D.C. nonprofit that advocates in favor of food freedom—the right to grow, raise, produce, buy, sell, share, cook, eat, and drink the foods of our own choosing.
NEXT: Steven Pinker on The Decline of Violence & "The Better Angels of Our Nature"
Reason Foundation Senior Fellow Baylen Linnekin is a food lawyer, scholar, and adjunct law professor, as well as the author of Biting the Hands That Feed Us: How Fewer, Smarter Laws Would Make Our Food System More Sustainable (Island Press 2016).
PoliticsPolicyNanny StateSoda BanMichael BloombergNew York CityFood Freedom

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Curious if we'll ever het the entire thing, I really like the track.
I've got a version of 59'52". It contains material not found on the album version.
Hi, could you please share it somewhere?
"The original version of Waiting for Cousteau is 75 minutes, but it's only 47 on the album (22 minutes on the LP). And nothing in the piece is repeated, not one single moment.
– So, every time you hear a *plink* on the piano, that's your finger, actually hitting the key?
Whereas various listeners attached themselves to JmJ saying various interviews software responsible for WFC.
Whilst I always maintained there is No computer program in 1990 No AI in 2019 that could display depth profoundness piano WFC.
Why would JmJ many times say it was software ?
Simply because JmJ revealed his innermost profound self for the first time on record.
Therafter realising what he had done JmJ wanted to distract listeners from this.
Notice fluffy jolly Calypso 1 that we accept as JmJ "we know" balances WFC profoundness.
Too bad the interviewer made no effort to ask for a copy of the 75 original... Or maybe he did, but we'll never know.
P.S. What user named '1906' has mentioned is false. His 60 min file is just one of those sliced copy-paste edits that have been circulating through this thread.
What do you mean, you'll never know? Just ask. But no, I didn't ask for the full verison. Why would I?
"I'm not as think as you drunk I am"
I should ask the artist for a copy so that I could spread it to fans? Why on Earth should Jarre do that? I would be rude of me to ask such a question.
Experimental 2001 isn't his to release. Dreyfus has the rights to it, just like they have for Sessions 2000 (which is the reason that one isn't on Spotify).
They're either never going to release it, or release it when they can easily cash in on Jarre's name for whatever reason. Which is a shame, because I'd love to hear it.
The former, i.e. never. The latter option is not realistic - I doubt anyone will ever consider this album an easy cash. Let's not forget why this album was never released - the reason is that the album was, pardon my French, "utter sh8" and it was delievered by JMJ only because he wanted to get out of the Sony/FDM relationship. I honestly doubt he (or whomever actually did it) put any effort into it, and even the album name is a clear indication of that (and was probably also a tongue-in-cheek justification of its alleged poor quality: "see, it's crap, because it's EXPERIMENTAL, get it?"). They will never release it, because they still make money selling GOOD JMJ albums and they most certainly will not want to jeopardize the "JMJ" brand. They didn't even want to release Sessions 2000 (and obviously since they kinda HAD to pick something they went with the "lesser evil" - i.e. S2K).
If Francis Dreyfus choice was S2k over Experimental 2001 (even if he hated both) as his last JMJ release I think the chances are overwhelming that E01 actually is one ugly duck.
Still hoping for someone to accidentally discover the full unedited (and radio chatter free) recordings of PLD from the Europe 2 basements* or somesuch.


Description: 1-speed bike is the electro alter-ego of aidan girt, drummer for the Montreal based bands exhaust and godspeed you black emperor! From its humble beginnings on an ancient 12-bit akai sampler, 1-speed bike progressed towards new and improved resolution on his debut full-length, while maintaining a decidedly punk irreverence and ramshackle aesthetic. First heard on the 3 remixes interspersed throughout the self-titled exhaust record (cst004), 1-speed bike beat manipulations are characterised by live drum phrases that pulse & breathe with organic dynamism, chopped & looped to form the backbone for melodic passages that range from the irreverent to the sublime.
1-Speed Bike, a.k.a. Bottleskup Flenkenkenmike, is one of Broklyn's favorite friends and co-conspirators. Besides the fact that he's a righteous guy who sticks to his guns (or rather no guns policy) he is also talented, witty, and a ball to be around. He's just about everything you hope a Canadian would be. His real name is Aidan and his real job for the last 7 years has been drumming with the insanely famous for an indie band band GSYBE! While this gig has given him some leverage he does everything in his power to stress the fact that his own project is nothing like the nine-piece band that he is only one piece of.


It's my first game made for a Game Jam, It's a die & retry game where you need to switch between two different worlds wich are connected together.
To win : Beat the 7 levels and if you die, you retry from start.
Liked that fact that the music transitioned from world to world.
Cannot move when two buttons pressed, please fix it.
Was satisfying to finish but did notice the keyboard input bugs as well, at times it felt unresponsive.
Also the music from the two worlds at time seemed to be playing in the wrong world. Liked the concept though and liked that it felt like a finished game. Nice job on a first game jam.
Unable to press keypad 1/2 on my MacBook, which keys do I use?
Nice game. Cool Graphics. But had a lot of trouble with the controls.
The player locks up when i try to press more than one button at a time, which makes avoiding the enemies quite difficult, and i also found i would often get stuck on the switches, so maybe consider next time making interacterbles non-solid. Other than these flaws and the fact that death restarts the game not the level, this is a nice little game, the music is nice and the concept is cool!
The controls are frustrating because it seems like if you let go of a key, movement will stop, so you will frequently abruptly come to a stop.
I'm actually fix same bugs and I will reupload in about 2 minutes.
Nice game, if there were any problems with controls i guess it's actually good and fun now .
Cool game,keep it up guys!
I cant pass the second level, not sure if there is a bug. I cant traverse the wall like in first level. Great music&graph though.
NuSan : Did you notice the levers?
You shall see those Switcher, what is your OS ?
It's strange because the levers texture are uploaded and if it can't be a bug because it's only few people who have this problem... Maybe try the Windows vertion?
Also tested the windows installed version, same bug. Maybe you did something wrong when fixing the keyboard?
Reuploaded, still working for me, tell me if it works for you too.
I think I know the answer but : Your browser support Htlm5?
nice game as far as i can play it, unfortunately i also don`t have the levers to progress past level 2.
That strange and intrigue me ! I checked on 4 computers on IE, Chrome and FirFox : All can see the levers in level 2.
Reuploaded I pray... Maybe it's finally fixed.
Yop, j'viens d'indiemag mais je vais écrire en anglais quand même pour que tout le monde puisse comprendre.
Nice game, I like the graphics and the music changing with the world you're in. The controls weren't that good though, I wish I was able to go in 8 directions rather than 4.
Congrats for making the music on your own, it's pretty good !
Cool. But I did not understand why the mobs? They do not cause any damage.
Hi there. Like the sounds, though they jar after a bit. I found the mobs on lv3 a bit too tough, probably not fast enough reactions.
Nice game! Maybe putting the change world button more accessible so your finger don't have to quit wasd (space for example) and only one button that make switch.
Funky game! controls get a little sticky.
* less contrast text - it's over saturated a bit.
I love the idea of switching between two versions of the same map to discover new things. Checkpoints after level completion would encourage to experiment even more. Game has good appeal! Good job!
Cool game. Nice and simple.
Great music at two worlds!
Good take on the theme. However it was rather difficult to avoid the enemies on level 3. Good work!


The Better Sponge is the last sponge you will ever need! It's bacteria and mildew resistant. It's dishwasher safe and easy to clean. The built-in suction is great for easy storage. It's made of flexible, durable silicone. The super soft bristles are gentle and non abrasive so they never scratch. The secret to the Better Sponge is the 3000 tiny silicone fingers that work to loosen and clean stuck-on grime. It's powerful enough to clean even the most filthy dishes. They can bend and flex to get into deep glasses and corners. They can also be used as a heat resistant pot holders.


text:
Paulo Tormenta Pinto
Lagarteiro Neighbourhood - Social housing building renovation
Lagarteiro is a social neighbourhood built in the outskirts of Porto in the 70s. Recently, the City Hall launched an huge intervention for renovating buildings and public space.
Photos by João Carmo Simões
Lagarteiro was one of the last social housing neighbourhoods built before the Portuguese Revolution of 1974. Lagarteiro design, like other projects of that time, followed a matrix used by Porto City Hal, which corresponded to housing buildings with four floors, surrounding a primary school and a sport enclosure. This model, resulted of the so called Improvement Plan of the City (Plano de Melhoramentos da Cidade), launched in late 50s. The main goal of the plan was rehousing people which lived in precarious conditions in the 'islands' of Porto city center. This policy precedes the mythic SAAL program, which would revealed to the world Álvaro Siza Vieira's work, namely Bouça and São Vitor interventions, published in the pages of L'Architecture d'Aujourd'hui magazine, in 1976.
Almost 50 years passed after the Lagarteiro construction (1973/1976), today this place overpassed its peripheral stigma, being much more connected with the core of the city. The architectural intervention contributed to improve the civic condition of Lagarteiro inhabitants. The project foresaw facades renovation, stairwell closure; roof changed, replacement of all windows and doors; water, electricity and gas supply including new communication nets, and public space. After the intervention Lagarteiro neighbourhood became a more sustainable place, stimulating urban life quality.
João Carmo Simões
Public and Social Housing


text:
Legal/Homeschool Laws
Laws that regulate home education vary from state to state. It is important to understand the legal requirements in your state and to be aware of legislative and other legal issues that affect homeschoolers in your community. We've compiled resources that will help you become informed. Although homeschooling is legal in all 50 states, and the vast majority of homeschoolers face no problems, you may find that you need legal assistance at some point in your homeschooling career. We've compiled a list of resources to help you find the support you need. And if you'd like to become more involved in working towards homeschooling freedoms, we discuss some of the issues facing homeschoolers that we hope you find compelling.
Read the laws regulating home education in Montana and browse through the case law and legal opinions relating to those laws, along with government publications relating to homeschooling and summaries of the laws.
Which forms do you need to fill out? Where can you get them? Here is a list of useful forms for homeschooling in Montana.
If you need legal information or have run into a legal situation regarding your decision to homeschool, these resources will be helpful.
Lobbying Groups
A listing of local and national lobbying groups and information on how you can become involved in the political process to ensure the freedom to homeschool is protected.
When searching for an attorney, it is helpful to know whether he or she has experience working with homeschoolers and is interested in protecting the right to homeschool.
Is homeschooling legal? Which laws pertain to homeschoolers and which don't? How do homeschoolers protect their rights to freely educate their children and to preserve their privacy?
A listing of local and state government resources, including your state's Department of Education, school districts, and Senate and House of Representative information.
Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary
In Pierce v. Society of the Sisters, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "the fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments of this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the creature of the state."
20-5-102. Compulsory enrollment and excuses.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), any parent, guardian, or other person who is responsible for the care of any child who is 7 years of age or older prior to the first day of school in any school fiscal year shall cause the child to be instructed in the program prescribed by the board of public education pursuant to 20-7-111 until the later of the following dates: (a) the child's 16th birthday; (b) the date of completion of the work of the 8th grade. (2) A parent, gua...
Homeschooling in Montana – The Battle for Freedom Continues
For many years, Montana homeschoolers have fought hard for the freedoms that many now enjoy. Homeschool parents need to be more involved in helping elect individuals to office who demonstrate support for Montana parents and families. Read about the battle in the spring of 2005 to preserve the freedom to homeschool in Montana.
20-5-111. Responsibilities and rights of parent who provides home school.
Subject to the provisions of 20-5-109, a parent has the authority to instruct his child, stepchild, or ward in a home school and is solely responsible for: (1) the educational philosophy of the home school; (2) the selection of instructional materials, curriculum, and textbooks; (3) the time, place, and method of instruction; and (4) the evaluation of the home school instruction.
Montana Coalition of Home Educators
The Montana Coalition of Home Educators came together in 1988 as a cooperative effort of many individuals, organizations, and support groups in the state. The goal was to bring homeschoolers together to protect Montana's home school freedom while maintaining the independence and autonomy of the individual families and the existing local and state organizations. To accomplish this goal, a loose network of these groups, individuals and organizations was formed. An executive committee was selected ...
20-5-109. Nonpublic school requirements for compulsory enrollment exemption.
To qualify its students for exemption from compulsory enrollment under 20-5-102, a nonpublic or home school shall: (1) maintain records on pupil attendance and disease immunization and make the records available to the county superintendent of schools on request; (2) provide at least 180 days of pupil instruction or the equivalent in accordance with 20-1-301 and 20-1-302; (3) be housed in a building that complies with applicable local health and safety regulations; (4...
Pacific Justice Institute (PJI)
Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. PJI provides free representation to parents who are unlawfully denied the right to homeschool their children. PJI also provides legal counsel to those parents wishing to homeschool, but do not know their legal options or obligations.
Montana Home School Laws from HSLDA
The Home School Legal Defense Association provides a brief summary of the homeschooling laws in Montana. Includes a link to a legal analysis of laws relating to homeschooling in Montana.
20-5-104. Attendance officer.
In order to enforce the compulsory attendance provisions of this title, each district shall have at least one person serving as an attendance officer according to the following requirements: (1) districts of the first and second class shall employ and appoint one or more attendance officers; (2) districts of the third class may employ and appoint an attendance officer or may appoint a constable or other peace officer as an attendance officer; or (3) the county superintendent...
This is the official website for the Montana Office of Public Instruction (the Montana Department of Education).
Stand for Freedom
Some veteran home educators seem to take a firm stand on principles that others don't even recognize as issues. Is it that they are just stubborn, rebellious, or cantankerous? Probably not.
20-5-110. Assessment for placement of a child who enrolls from a nonaccredited, nonpublic school.
The trustees of a school district shall: (1) adopt a district policy on assessment for placement of any child who enrolls in a school of the district and whose previous place of instruction was a nonpublic school that is not accredited; (2) include in the adopted policy the following provisions: (a) the specific assessment for placement to be administered to any child subject to the provisions of subsection (1); (b) a procedure for grade and program placement of the c...
20-5-103. Compulsory attendance and excuses.
1) Except as provided in subsection (2), any parent, guardian, or other person who is responsible for the care of any child who is 7 years of age or older prior to the first day of school in any school fiscal year shall cause the child to attend the school in which he is enrolled for the school term and each school day therein prescribed by the trustees of the district until the later of the following dates: (a) the child's 16th birthday; (b) the date of completion of the work of t...
Keeping Homeschooling Private
Homeschoolers have been vigilant in protecting their rights, rising to the occasion when they discover threats to clamp down on their activities. Discusses some of the criticisms by opponents of homeschooling, along with the examples of some legal fights in Connecticut and Montana.
The Seduction of Homeschooling Families
Do the public school authorities feel threatened by homeschooling? Judging by their efforts to lure homeschooling families into dependence on local school districts, the answer is apparently yes. For the last several years, homeschooling has been the fastest growing educational alternative in the country. The sheer number of homeschoolers represent a distinct threat to the hegemony of the government school monopoly. Qualitatively, the academic success of homeschoolers, measured by standardized t...
Montessori Reading is a beginning reading and writing program for elementary aged children. This series of books introduce phonetic letter sounds, phonogram combinations, reading simple sentences, and reading and writing words that name everyday obje...
Confused and intimidated by the complexities of homeschooling, many sincere parents never get past the "thinking about it" stage. Now Lisa Whelchel - herself a homeschooling mother of three - introduces fifteen real families and shows how they overc...
From a bedroom community in Nebraska to a farm in Vermont, from families who rely on workbooks to those who have sworn them off, this in-depth examination of the lives of homeschoolers covers a wide range of people and methods. When author Nancy Land...
What is the capital of NJ? Where is the Football Hall of Fame? These are just a few of the hundreds of questions players are asked as they adventure around the USA discovering state attractions and landmarks, capitals, state abbreviations, state loca...
State Laws Forms Legal Support Lobbying Groups Attorneys Legal Issues Government Resources
Engineering Meteorology Forms Listening Skills Practical HSing Vocal Music Geography Curricula Classical Homeschooling Chemistry U.S. Geography


Governor Ron DeSantis announced new measures in Florida's fight against the opioid crisis today. These include a statewide task force aimed at reducing overdose deaths.
DeSantis says local leaders and medical experts on the task force will develop a statewide strategy to prevent and treat opioid addiction.
He says law enforcement like Seminole County Sheriff Dennis Lemma will also suggest ways to reduce access to these drugs.
DeSantis also announced he will reinstate the Office of Drug Control to implement these recommendations at the local level.
Attorney General Ashley Moody who will lead the task force says the group will work closely with the Office to secure more funding at the federal level.
Moody says the group will also work with the newly appointed State Surgeon General.
Dr. Scott Rivkees is a University of Florida professor and pediatric specialist.


Parties to meet at Acas mitigation service tomorrow in a bid to end the dispute around rail guards.
Southern rail commuters will be relieved after the RMT union announced it would suspended its planned strike action tomorrow (11 August) and Friday in reaction to peace talks being tabled with franchise operator Govia Thameslink Railway (GTR).
The parties will meet mitigation service Acas tomorrow in a bid to resolve the dispute over the future role of guards on the network.
"We are encouraged that the RMT has accepted our offer to resume talks at Acas and has agreed to call off its strike action," a spokesperson for Southern said.
"For our passengers sake we truly hope these talks will be productive and bring this long-running dispute to an end.
"At present, the strike timetable is still in the industry train planning systems for Thursday and Friday.
"Regrettably, this means tomorrow's service will be based upon the present strike timetable but we will do our very best to add services in and extend the hours of operation wherever possible. On Friday, we plan to revert to the revised timetable operating before the strike."
The development comes after RMT members protested outside of the Department for Transport this morning, accusing the government of "sabotaging" previous negotiations between the parties.
Southern guards had staged strikes on Monday and Tuesday and will continue their industrial action today. Tens of thousands of commuters have been affected by the walkouts, with Prime Minister Theresa May condemning the strike.


text:
class NSString;
#endif

namespace base {

std::string SysCFStringRefToUTF8(CFStringRef ref);
std::string SysNSStringToUTF8(NSString* nsstring);
CFStringRef SysUTF8ToCFStringRef(const std::string& utf8);
NSString* SysUTF8ToNSString(const std::string& utf8);

}  // namespace base

#endif  // defined(OS_MACOSX)

#endif  // MINI_CHROMIUM_BASE_STRINGS_SYS_STRING_CONVERSIONS_H_

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Q: How to see the change during a 'merge conflict' in git rebase I delete a file in my working directory. And then I do a 'git pull'.
Another person in my team modify the same file and 'git push' to the HEAD.
So when I do a 'git rebase', I get a merge conflict something like 'CONFLICT git (delete)'
My question is how can I find out what changes did the another person in the team made to the file I 'delete'?
Thank you.

A: When there is conflict during a merge or rebase, different versions of a file are available from:

*

*respective branches:
$ git show HEAD:path/to/file
$ git show branch:path/to/file

*as stages 1, 2, 3 in the index:
$ git ls-files --unmerged
# ...
$ git show :1:path/to/file
$ git show :2:path/to/file

There are also tools such as "git diff --cc" and "git log --merge".
See documentation for details.

A: Git keeps a copy of the state of upstream branches in your repository as "remote tracking" branches. If you do a git branch -r you will see a list of all remote branches. Choose the one that corresponds to the branch you're working on, and do something like:
git diff HEAD^..origin/master

This should show you changes between your HEAD parent (assuming your delete was the last commit, modify as necessary) and the current state of the upstream branch.

A: Create another branch from your last known good pull. Then do a Pull in the new branch from your friend. You will then be able to invstigate the log of the new branch and then know how to merge to two branches together into one then you can push to him.
Our normal development setup is to have one GIT repository that everyone rebases from. I recommend rebasing instead of pulling from a central repository. This is because if you pull from the repository then rebase to the same repository your commits that you've sent to the repository will conflict with your current branch. We generally found it easier if you have to use pull or push, to use patches instead.
Eg.. Never rebase from a repository that you've pulled from.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
OpinionSummariesCase details
Dayton Walther Corp. v. Caldwell
Rust-Oleum Corp. v. Fitz
As noted, the Fitzes do not claim that impleader was improper based upon Rust-Oleum's third-party complaint,…
Noblesville Casting Division of TRW, Inc. v. Prince
Indeed, that was the focus of Palace Bar, Inc. v. Fearnot, supra; the rule is well established in this…
Full title:DAYTON WALTHER CORPORATION AND THE FAYETTE-HAULETTE DIVISION OF DAYTON…
Court:Supreme Court of Indiana
Copy Citations
402 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. 1980)
402 N.E.2d 1252
finding the issue waived and quoting Gamble v. Lewis, 227 Ind. 455, 85 N.E.2d 629, 635 as stating, "[w]e cannot permit litigants to gamble on the possibility of a favorable verdict, and, after an adverse verdict has been returned, set it aside on appeal when the losing parties failed to move that the submission be set aside when the alleged error occurred."
Summary of this case from Stanton v. Ritter and the Kroger Co.
See 2 Summaries
No. 480S103.
Filed April 17, 1980.
1. PROCEDURE — Final Argument — Attorney's Comments. — To fulfill the purposes of final argument, the attorney has a right and a duty to comment on the evidence that is before the jury for their consideration. Only when he misquotes evidence or extends his comments to areas of fact or supposition that are not in the evidence present is he acting improperly. p. 195.
2. EVIDENCE — Medical Testimony — Increased Risk of Disease. — Where plaintiff's increased susceptibility to certain diseases was established by direct medical testimony and to a reasonable certainty, the fact that doctors testifying were unable to state with any degree of certainty that the plaintiff would, in fact, suffer those diseases, did not reduce their testimony to that of mere speculation or guess work so as to prevent the jury's consideration of such evidence. p. 198.
3. EVIDENCE — Exclusion — Objection Required. — Where incompetent evidence is admitted without objection, its probative value is for the trier of fact to determine, notwithstanding the fact that such evidence might have been excluded if proper and timely objection had been made. p. 199.
4. APPEAL — Preservation of Error — Objection Required. — To preserve statements of counsel for appellate review, the opposing party must: (1) promptly object to such statements, (2) request the court to admonish the jury to disregard them, and (3) move to have the submission set aside. p. 200.
5. DAMAGES — Jury Determination — Appellate Review. — A jury's determination of damages will not be disturbed unless it was based on emotion, sympathy, or prejudice to the extent that it was unreasonable. p. 202.
6. PROCEDURE — Motion in Limine — Denial. — The denial of a motion in limine does not automatically require a reversal. Any harm occurs only when the evidence is improperly admitted. p. 203.
7. EVIDENCE — Admissibility — Limited Purpose. — If evidence is admissible for a limited purpose, the burden is upon the opposing party, not the trial court, to ascertain that the evidence is considered by the jury for such limited purpose only. p. 205.
8. EVIDENCE — Minimal Probative Value. — Error may occur if relevant evidence of minimal probative value is admitted when that evidence is likely to induce a jury to reach a decision based upon improper considerations. p. 206.
9. APPEAL — Objection at Trial — Required. — Questions which are not specifically raised by the objections offered at trial cannot be considered on appeal. p. 206.
10. JURIES — Instructions — Negative Instructions. — A trial court has no duty to give negative instructions, enumerating elements for which the plaintiff may not recover damages, when the jury has been properly instructed on the positive aspects of the same issue. p. 207.
11. PROCEDURE — Separate Trials — Third Party Complaint Issues. — It is not error for a trial court to order separate trials for issues raised in third party complaints when the court determines those issues would present too many complications at trial on the original complaints. p. 210.
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff in a tort action based upon (1) the trial court's overruling of defendant's objection to statements made by plaintiff's attorney during final argument, and (2) alleged excessiveness of damage award.
From the Randolph Circuit Court, Zane E. Stohler, Judge.
Transfer granted. Trial Court judgment affirmed.
William H. Vobach, Locke, Reynolds, Boyd Weisell, of Indianapolis, for appellants.
John T. Cook, Peter D. Haviza, of Winchester, Wayne J. Lennington, of Muncie, for appellees.
PIVARNIK, J.
This cause comes to us on a petition to transfer by Plaintiff-Appellee, Rhonda Sue Caldwell, from the Court of Appeals. Plaintiff Caldwell was severely injured in an accident on August 29, 1974. On that date, Terry Fowler was driving a truck owned by his father, Billy Fowler, along State Road 28, in Delaware County. Attached to the truck was an empty three-axle heavy equipment trailer, which had been manufactured by Dayton Walther and purchased by Fowler from Stockberger Machinery, Inc. As the trailer passed over a bump in the highway, it became disconnected from the truck and collided head-on with the automobile operated by seventeen-year-old Rhonda Sue Caldwell. She suffered very serious injuries and her two passengers, her brother and a friend, died at the scene.
In consolidated actions, her father and daughter brought suit against the manufacturer and seller of the equipment, and the driver of the truck. The Randolph Circuit Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding Rhonda Caldwell $800,000.00, and awarding her father, Walter Caldwell, $9,159.50. The manufacturer, Dayton Walther, appealed.
The Court of Appeals, First District, reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded for a new trial in Rhonda Caldwell's cause of action, No. 1 878 A 233. The judgment in favor of Walter Caldwell's cause of action, No. 1 878 A 232 was affirmed. Dayton Walther Corp., v. Caldwell, (1979) Ind. App., 389 N.E.2d 723. On rehearing, the Court of Appeals, First District, clarified its opinion to specify the parties and to limit the new trial previously ordered to the issue of damages. Dayton Walther Corp. v. Caldwell, (1979) Ind. App., 393 N.E.2d 208.
The issue presented for our review on transfer is the issue designated as Issue Five in the Court of Appeals opinion, Dayton Walther Corp., v. Caldwell, (1979) 389 N.E.2d 723 at 729, concerning whether or not the court erred in overruling Dayton Walther's objection to statements made by Caldwell's attorney during final argument. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in overruling Dayton Walther's objection. We find the Court of Appeals in error in this regard and accordingly vacate its opinion on this issue. Since the Court of Appeals had set aside the judgment, they did not decide the issue designated as Issue Seven in the Court of Appeals opinion, 389 N.E.2d 723 at 733, which referred to the damages awarded to Rhonda Caldwell as being excessive. We will accordingly, decide that issue also. We find all other issues decided by the Court of Appeals to be correctly decided. We adopt the Court of Appeals opinion on these issues, and incorporate their opinion by reference herein. (See Appendix). We also vacate the Court of Appeals opinion on rehearing. Transfer is granted.
Dayton Walther contends that the Caldwell's attorney misled the jury on the issue of damages during final argument by comments regarding potential for epilepsy and meningitis. The Caldwell's attorney made the following statement: "There's five senses, if I remember my health class, sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch, isn't that what they told us. She's either lost all or part of three of them. How do you put that in dollars? Of course, they have given her something too, you don't want to forget that. They've given her a potential for epilepsy. They've given her a potential for meningitis.
Mr. Peckinpaugh: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this argument in that there's no compensable element here. I think it's improper argument at this time.
The Court: The Court will overrule the objection.
Mr. Peckinpaugh: Thank you, your Honor. I apologize to the counsel for interrupting his argument.
Mr. Cook: (continuing) They've given her some abnormal fears. Then also they've given her this. Now neither the jury nor any of the medical doctors can restore those things to her. There's just no way. Everybody knows that. But you can take some of the load maybe off of her, you know, family. Because maybe the jury does have the power to see that her financial problems are minimized. The jury does have the power to see that maybe she could have some material things that has a meaning to ladies and gentlemen. I'm talking about things like having enough money for nice clothes, having enough money for vacations. She isn't going to have much. Have enough money for pleasant — to have a pleasant home and surroundings, and have enough money to have the very best medical treatment. How do we calculate this? I told you in the beginning, you know, it's — it's not possible to put on — it's not possible for the jury to measure pain in a — a dollar's worth of pain or a dollar's worth of impairment, but the law, the tables — the law lets us put these tables in about people's life expenctancy, to give us a little formula here that we might be able to use, and that's the reason I was permitted to read to you that this girl has a life expectancy of 60.13 years. I'm going to break this all down again for the loss of sight, taste, smell, leg, teeth, potential epilespy, [epilepsy] meningitis. Would — that be worth for the total of those, of the ability — the lack of the pleasures of life, would that be worth $15,000.00 a year? Well, if it would be, we're talking about $900,000.00. That's what the figure is if you talked about her lifetime, if she's just given $15,000.00 a year. As Mr. (unintelligible) said, there isn't anybody that would have her injuries for $15,000.00 a year. If you say $10,000.00, if you say well, she ought to have $10,000.00 a year with that problem, then you're talking about $600,000.00. That's the way that — that's the way you can use those tables for those purposes, to determine pain, suffering, the loss of your members — or your senses, those senses can all be used to make this determination."
The above comments referring to either epilepsy or meningitis were the only language used within his final argument. The general objection by counsel was the only objection that was ever made by defendants, either to the admission of the evidence or to comments on it in the closing argument. Defendants did not object to the admission of the medical evidence at the time it was admitted, counsel did not address a motion to the court to strike the testimony of doctors giving evidence of potential epilepsy and meningitis at the close of their testimony, or at the close of all the evidence.
An attorney has a right and duty to comment on the evidence that is before the jury for their consideration. This is the very purpose of final argument. Only when he misquotes the [1] evidence or extends his comments to areas of fact or supposition that are not in the evidence presented is he acting improperly. It is difficult for us to understand how plaintiff's counsel's remarks here concerning epilepsy and meningitis could be considered misleading to the jury when his statements were couched in the exact language the witnesses had used. There was no statement by him that attempted to enlarge or extend the statements made by the medical witnesses which thereby gave a different or corrupted meaning to them. The doctors very clearly stated that the conditions existing in the brain and the dura of the plaintiff created conditions in which there was a "potential" for epilepsy and meningitis. Dayton Walther never offered an objection during the entire testimony of these doctors on the grounds now raised in this appeal. Counsel never moved to strike any of the answers of either doctor on the grounds raised in this issue before, nor did counsel make such a motion at the close of the testimony of either of the witnesses.
Both doctors testified at great length on this subject on direct examination and were cross-examined. Both witnesses testified that the injuries to the front of the skull and the face of the plaintiff were severe. Dr. Goodell testified that the main concern in administering to the plaintiff in the emergency room was her very survival. The fracture to her skull in the frontal part of her face and forehead, covering the frontal lobe of the brain was such that there were several breaks in which many fragments of bone shattered and penetrated into the frontal lobe of the brain. An area of the brain was exposed and apparent to Dr. Goodell when he began his treatment of the plaintiff. It was necessary to remove 40 to 50 grams of brain tissue that had been damaged and contained blood and fragments of bone. There were thirteen lacerations of the dura, the lining of the brain, that had to be repaired by sutures. Both of the witnesses testified that the dura will not repair itself and that the closing of the tears done by Dr. Goodell was the only manner of treating this injury. Bone structures, muscles and nerves around the eyes, nose and sinuses were completely destroyed and had to be removed. Subsequent operations followed the emergency treatment in an attempt to correct the problems in these areas. There was permanent damage to the bone structures in these areas. These structures normally create a natural shield for the brain so that infections created by the functions of these organs do not reach the brain and occasion meningitis.
Dr. Goodell testified that brain scars are probably the most common cause of post-traumatic epilepsy, and that there would certainly be brain scars following the injuries and repair work done on plaintiff's brain. Goodell stated that the incidence of epilepsy is greater in penetrating than in non-penetrating types of injuries. He testified that a fragment of bone penetrating the dura mater and coming in contact with the cortex, is much more likely to cause epilepsy. He further testified that the threat of epilepsy to a person who has a trauma to the brain, such as plaintiff suffered here, was of so great a potential that he prescribed Dilantin for the plaintiff to prevent the onset of epileptic seizures. Plaintiff took this medication for at least a year. He stated that the highest potential for epilepsy exists in the first three years after such trauma, and that the potential has a tendency to decrease the longer a person goes without experiencing epilepsy.
Dr. Pell testified that plaintiff had had one episode of meningitis which was undoubtedly associated with the injury. This episode could have occurred one of two ways. Germs could have been sealed into the brain after it was repaired, or germs from infected areas of the nose, sinuses and eyes, could have traveled into the brain due to the lack of natural protection of the structures that had been removed. He further testified that plaintiff now has a prosthesis or plastic bone replacement in the forehead, which was used to act as a further barrier, should an infection in the skin occur, in an attempt to prevent the spread of infection from occurring as rapidly as it otherwise might. The prothesis in the forehead also gave her protection from external blows to the skull in that area and acted to give cosmetic structure and appearance to her skull. His statement was that she has permanent defects in the skull and that the structures of the bone about the nose and eyes are not as good as nature made her, even though a very good repair job was done. He said that if the brain is not properly sealed off the potential for meningitis is greater. Dr. Pell's testimony was that in the normal population epilepsy occurs in about five out of one thousand persons. He stated, however, that if a person has had a fracture of the skull, just a crack, not a piece of tissue being damaged and not fragments penetrating it, the average is five out of 100 persons developing epilepsy. He stated, therefore, that the odds for epilepsy in those cases are increased tenfold. He further stated that with the tearing and trauma to the dura and its repair, the odds go higher. His statement was that anyone treating plaintiff Caldwell for the rest of her life would have to watch her for the potential of epilepsy and meningitis. All of these facts were testified to by the medical expert witnesses as being facts to a reasonable medical certainty.
The only issue regarding the question of certainty came about when questions were asked of the doctors as to what kind of estimate they could give as to whether or not plaintiff actually would develop epilepsy or meningitis in the future. The doctors both testified that though this potential exists, they could not state with any certainty that plaintiff would be one of the percentage that will get either of these diseases, rather than one of the percentage of persons who will not. Statistics show that thirty percent of the people who had injury to the back part of the head developed traumatic epilepsy, fifty percent of the people who have injury to the flat part of the skull develop post-traumatic epilepsy and five percent of those having damage and trauma to the front part of the skull develop traumatic epilepsy. This percentage could go up with a penetrating type wound, damage to the dura and other factors discussed above. Statistics on damage to the front part of the head are not as available as are those concerning damage to the other parts of the skull, and the doctors could not testify to statistics of percentages above those they had stated.
The appellant, Dayton Walther, relied heavily on Palace Bar v. Fearnot, (1978) 269 Ind. 405, 381 N.E.2d 858, to support their contention that the testimony of doctors here was [2] speculation and not evidence at all. In Palace Bar, the medical evidence was without conflict that the plaintiff's decedent died from a heart attack. He had a history of heart trouble which had occasioned many previous attacks. The doctor testified in Palace Bar that, though it is possible for a heart attack to be caused by a fall, there was no way that he could state, with any certainty, that the fall down the stairs of the Palace Bar had precipitated the heart attack, and that it would have been pure speculation on his part to say so. He said there were many causes for the onset of a heart attack and it was not possible for him to state what had caused plaintiff decedent's attack. He further stated that he did not know whether the plaintiff decedent might have recovered if he had received earlier treatment and attention. The physician stated that there was no way of knowing the direction or progress of a heart seizure following its onset, and that he had known of many persons who were treated immediately whose seizure resulted in death. In Palace Bar, the plaintiff was not able to bring probative evidence that would justify the jury in inferring that the defendant's alleged failure to render aid to the decedent was the proximate cause of his death. Such an inference would have been proper only if the physician had stated that, in his opinion, based on a reasonable medical certainty, immediate aid would have, or could have, saved Fearnot's life. The facts of Palace Bar are, therefore, different from those in this case. Here, there was direct evidence to a medical certainty, that serious injuries had resulted to the brain and its environs as a direct result of the acts of this defendant. The facts of the trauma and resultant injuries to the brain, the dura of the brain, and the surrounding structures in and about the nose, sinuses and eyes, were presented. The fact that these injuries resulted in a condition where the brain is not protected from the onset of epilepsy and meningitis, as it was in its natural state previous to the injuries, and therefore has an increased potential for the onset of these diseases, was established by direct medical testimony and to a reasonable medical certainty. The fact that the doctors were not able to state with any degree of certainty, that this plaintiff would, in fact, have one or both of these diseases, did not reduce their testimony to that of speculation, guess or possibility to the extent that the jury could not consider this potential in weighing the permanent damage occasioned by these injuries. To hold otherwise would virtually wipe out any appraisal by an expert medical witness as to an estimate of permanent future impairments which are involved in their description of present conditions and facts. The doctors could not state whether she would be one of the persons in her condition who would actually experience epilepsy or meningitis, but they could state with certainty that a percentage, probably higher than five percent of those in her condition, would. Plaintiff had already occasioned one onset of meningitis and had already been treated with Dilantin, for a year, to prevent seizures.
The situation in this case can be further distinguished from that in Palace Bar, supra, in that the defendant in Palace Bar had filed a motion for judgment at the close of plaintiff's evidence after having repeatedly objected to the testimony of the medical witnesses, on the grounds that the plaintiff had not maintained her burden of proof in that she did not prove the proximate relationship between the appellant's acts or omissions and Fearnot's death. This motion was overruled and the defendants renewed their motion at the close of all the evidence, which motion was again overruled by the court. As we have already stated in this case, Dayton Walther did none of these things. Therefore, even if it could be said arguendo, that the evidence as to the potential for epilepsy and meningitis of the plaintiff was improper evidence, the defendant did not timely raise the issue, and, therefore, it was properly before the jury to consider in its determination of amount of damages to award to this plaintiff.
In Kern v. State of Indiana, (1957) 237 Ind. 144, 144 N.E.2d 705, this Court held that where statements admitted into evidence without objection were hearsay but were relevant, the [3] probative value of such statements was for the court or jury, notwithstanding the fact that said evidence could have been excluded if proper and timely objection had been made. The First District Court of Appeals, in Norrington v. Smith, (1973) 154 Ind. App. 413, 290 N.E.2d 60, 63, held that: "At the close of both plaintiff's and defendant's evidence, the defendant-appellants moved to strike the evidence tending to show that the occurrence was other than a collision. However, defendants never objected to the introduction of such evidence during the trial and the court properly overruled appellant's motion to strike the evidence." Thus, the Court of Appeals found, in that case, that even where the motion to strike was made after the close of all the evidence, the court was not required to grant the motion since no objection was made at the time of its presentation. It is a well-settled rule of law in Indiana that where incompetent evidence, hearsay or otherwise, is admitted without objection, its probative value is for the trier of fact to determine, notwithstanding the fact that such evidence might have been excluded if proper and timely objection had been made. Kern v. State, supra; Klingler v. Ottinger, (1939) 216 Ind. 9, 22 N.E.2d 805; Ziegler v. Tipton Lumber Company, (1958) 128 Ind. App. 249, 147 N.E.2d 679; Chicago District, etc., Corp. v. Evans, (1946) 117 Ind. App. 280, 69 N.E.2d 627; Myers v. Sparks, (1926) 85 Ind. App. 343, 154 N.E. 39; Spielman v. Herskovitz, (1922) 78 Ind. App. 131, 134 N.E. 909.
Since the evidence demonstrated by the testimony of the expert medical witnesses was before the jury as an issue to be decided by them in reaching their verdict on damages, it was [4] proper for plaintiff to comment on that evidence as he did. The objection of defendant Dayton Walther Corp. was only that "there was no compensable element there" and the court properly overruled that objection. The defendant did not follow this by any motion to strike the remarks or to admonish the jury to disregard them or to withdraw the submission to the jury so that the opportunity might be presented to the trial court to correct its own error if, in fact, there was error. This procedure was established by this court for a party to preserve the error of the trial court for review, as early as 1918, in Ramseyer, et al., v. Dennis, (1918) 187 Ind. 420, 119 N.E. 716, and has been held to be the law ever since. In Ramseyer we stated that to preserve statements of counsel for appellate review, the opposing party must follow these procedures: "(1) to promptly interpose and state their objection if reasonably required, to the objectionable language or argument and request the court to so instruct the jury as to counteract any harmful effect of such language or argument, and if granted and such instructions were not sufficient to cure the error, follow such action by motion to have the submission set aside; (2) to promptly object to the improper language or argument of counsel and move to set aside the submission stating reasons why the harm done could not be cured by any action the court might take in the matter." We further stated in Ramseyer, supra, "Appellants occupy the position of having properly objected to the argument claimed to constitute misconduct with a ruling against them properly saved with an additional right to move that the submission be set aside of which latter privilege they fail to avail themselves thereby holding a point in reserve to undo the verdict if unfavorable. This failure will be regarded as an admission that the alleged improper argument did not furnish grounds sufficient to set aside the submission. Consequently, appellants are in the attitude of coming to this Court and asking that a judgment be reversed on account of an alleged error occurring at the trial of the cause which would not warrant the withdrawal of the case from the jury." 187 Ind. App. 420, 439-40, 119 N.E. 716.
In 1949, we stated, in Gamble v. Lewis, 227 Ind. 455, 85 N.E.2d 629 at 635: "We cannot permit litigants to gamble on the possibility of a favorable verdict, and, after an adverse verdict has been returned, set it aside on appeal when the losing parties failed to move that the submission be set aside when the alleged error occurred." In 1977, the Court of Appeals, in Kirk v. Harris, 173 Ind. App. 445, 364 N.E.2d 145, at 149, set out procedures for a challenge based on supposed misconduct and stated: "Kirk's attorney objected but he did not either ask for an admonishment or move for a mistrial. Even if we were to assume that he deemed such steps useless in light of the ruling on the objection, it is imperative that he proceed correctly to preserve the alleged error for appeal. The purpose of our stated procedures is to allow the trial court to correct its errors immediately." See also, White v. Crow, (1964) 245 Ind. 276, 198 N.E.2d 222; Richmond Gas Corp., v. Reeves, (1973) 158 Ind. App. 338, 302 N.E.2d 795; Raisor v. Kelly, (1972) 152 Ind. App. 198, 282 N.E.2d 871; City of Shelbyville v. Morton, (1965) 138 Ind. App. 460, 208 N.E.2d 705; David Johnson Company v. Basile, (1964) 136 Ind. App. 611, 199 N.E.2d 478. The defendant accordingly, did not preserve this issue for appeal and the Court of Appeals was incorrect in finding it to be a grounds for reversal of the judgment for damages.
Finally, we have to consider the issue presented by defendant Dayton Walther's contention that a verdict of $800,000 to the plaintiff was excessive. In addition to the evidence we [5] have set out above in this opinion, the evidence was that plaintiff suffered a fractured right tibia in her arm, loss of two teeth, which were driven into her lip, a fractured orbit bone supporting her right eye, fractured nasal orbit bone, damage to both optic nerves and damage to her olfactory nerve. She underwent operations to her eyes to attempt to relieve double vision and a wall-eyed appearance caused primarily by damage to her left eye. There was permanent damage to the optic nerves of both eyes. "Wall-eyed" is a condition in which the eye tends to point to the side and in her case it was the left eye that had a wall-eyed appearance. This condition caused double vision because the eyes could not focus properly. Doctor Roch, who did the surgery and treatment of her eyes, testified that this condition could not be corrected further and was a permanent condition. He further testified that the damage to both optic nerves was permanent and that they could not be repaired any further. His testimony was that she had a 59% permanent impairment of her visual system and because of these conditions had a 56% permanent impairment of her whole person. Because some of the bones and nerves in and about her olfactory system were permanently destroyed and removed, she had completely and permanently lost her sense of smell, and with it, almost all of her sense of taste. She had recurring headaches and pain that were permanent in that they could not be reduced further. There was a great deal of testimony that she had recurring emotional fears and had a change in her personality that created many problems for her and would continue to do so. The testimony of the medical experts was that the injury to her frontal lobe and the partial removal of it damaged the part of the brain that controls emotions and personality. The testimony of the medical experts attributed many problems she had regarding her emotional fears, personality change, and distress with a marriage and her relationship with her father, to the damages caused by the negligence of this defendant. There was some damage to the cosmetic appearance of her face due to scarring, although it was stated that this was reduced to a minimum and was not a serious problem. The trier of fact had before it evidence of all of these damages. The plaintiff was a seventeen-year-old girl, who was twenty-one years old at the time of the trial, with a life expectancy of 60.13 years. This was ample evidence for them to find that $800,000 was a reasonable figure in damages. We cannot say, under the facts in this case, that their determination was based on emotion, sympathy, or prejudice, to the extent that it was unreasonable. We, therefore, will not disturb it.
Transfer is granted; the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Givan, C.J., Hunter and Debruler, JJ., concur.
Prentice, J., dissents.
Issue One
Dayton Walther contends that the trial court erred when it denied part of Dayton Walther's motion in limine.
In general, the denial of a motion in limine does not occasion reversible error. The harm if any, occurs when the evidence is improperly admitted. State v. Church of the Nazarene, (1978) 268 Ind. 523, 377 N.E.2d 607; Marsh v. Lesh, (1975) 164 Ind. App. 67, 326 N.E.2d 626. The admissibility of that evidence is considered in Issue Two.
Dayton Walther asserts that the trial court erred in overruling Dayton Walther's objections to certain testimony which Dayton Walther characterizes as gruesome, inflammatory, immaterial, irrelevant, and prejudicial.
Dayton Walther argued at trial that the testimony of two police officers who described the condition of the two passengers in the automobile after the collision was irrelevant, immaterial, not probative, and only intended to inflame the prejudice of the jury. The trial court admitted the evidence after concluding that it was relevant to show the severity of impact.
The argument of Dayton Walther on appeal is summarized in the following statement in its brief:
". . . these defendants [Dayton Walther] were not being sued for alleged fault in driving at an excessive rate of speed, and the severity of the impact really had nothing to do with any issue of fault asserted against the appellants [Dayton Walther]."
This argument ignores the fact that the Caldwells had charged Terry Fowler with driving at an excessive rate of speed. Terry Fowler's liability, as well as that of Dayton Walther, was being determined at the trial.
In Washington Theatre Co. v. Marion Theatre Corp., (1948) 119 Ind. App. 114, 130, 81 N.E.2d 688, 694, appears this resolution of a comparable specification of error:
"Appellant, Washington Theatre Company, asserts error in the admission over its objection of the testimony referred to in its specifications 6 to 18 of its motion for a new trial. The appellant contends that such evidence of conversations between Gregory, an officer of appellee corporation, and appellant Connors and the other specified testimony of other witnesses constituted hearsay evidence as to it. All of such material testimony was admissible as against the other defendant in the cause, and as such was proper. . . ." (Citations omitted, our emphasis).
In Hogue v. McClintock, (1881) 76 Ind. 205, 208-9, McClintock sued Samuel Hogue, Thomas Hogue, George Bone, and seven other persons to recover the value of certain wheat wrongfully taken from McClintock. McClintock obtained a judgment against Hogue, Hogue and Bone. Bone and Thomas Hogue appealed and challenged the admissibility of certain evidence:
"The grounds of objection to said several statements and admissions of Samuel Hogue were, that they were made in the absence of the appellants, and therefore were inadmissible against them. After the objections to the admission of these several declarations and admissions had been overruled, the appellants moved to strike them out, for the same reasons given against their admission as evidence. All the evidence so objected to, which consisted of declarations and admissions of Samuel Hogue, were unquestionably admissible against him; therefore, the objections of the appellants to their admission at all in the case, and their motions to strike the evidence of them from the record, were too broad, and for that reason, if no other, the objections and motions were properly overruled. . ."
(Citation omitted; our emphasis)
Dayton Walther maintains that the trial court had a duty to limit the jury's use of the evidence.
In Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Pring, (1911) 50 Ind. App. 566, 580, 96 N.E. 180, 185, evidence was admitted which was proper to prove the employer's knowledge of the employee's incompetency in general but not proper to prove the employee's negligence at the time complained of. The appellant argued that the jury probably considered the evidence for both purposes. The court on appeal responded:
". . . Conceding this to be true, the error was not in the admission of the evidence, because it is error to exclude evidence if admissible for any purpose. If appellant's counsel be correct in their contention, the error resulted from a failure to restrict and limit the evidence by proper instruction. Appellant, failing to tender such instruction, cannot be heard to complain of a prejudicial influence resulting from its own neglect and omission. . . ." (Citation omitted)
In State v. Vaughan, (1962) 243 Ind. 221, 227, 184 [7] N.E.2d 143, 146, our Supreme Court wrote:
". . . It is not error to admit evidence if it is relevant[,] material and competent for any use. If the use for which the evidence is admissible is limited, the burden is on the opposing party to ascertain that the evidence is considered by the trier of the facts for such limited purpose only. . . ." (Our insertion)
The transcript from trial reveals that Dayton Walther simply asked the trial court to deny admission of the evidence. Dayton Walther made no request that the evidence be admitted for limited purpose; Dayton Walther tendered no jury instruction to restrict or limit the jury's use of the evidence.
Dayton Walther cites Kiefer v. State, (1958) 239 Ind. 103, 153 N.E.2d 899, and Evansville School Corp. v. Price, (1965) 138 Ind. App. 268, 208 N.E.2d 689, as authority for the following statement:
". . . even if evidence is both material and relevant, where the evidence is both so gruesome or pathetic that it would tend to inflame a jury into rendering an irrational unfair verdict, and that evidence is also unnecessary to prove a relevant issue, then there is no question: that inflammatory evidence is not admissible." (Dayton Walther's emphasis)
We are not persuaded that Kiefer, supra and Price, supra, support the broad statement for which Dayton Walther cites them as authority.
This court has acknowledged that error may occur if relevant evidence of minimal probative value is admitted when that evidence is likely to induce a jury to reach a decision [8, 9] based upon improper considerations. Boles v. State, (1975) 163 Ind. App. 196, 322 N.E.2d 722. Dayton Walther asserted at trial, however, that the evidence was not material, not relevant, not probative, and was introduced only for the purpose of inflaming the prejudice of the jury. Questions which are not specifically raised by the objections offered at trial cannot be considered on appeal. Reed v. Trainor, (1968) 142 Ind. App. 192, 233 N.E.2d 685.
Dayton Walther has not demonstrated error in the admission of the testimony.
Dayton Walther maintains that the trial court erred when it refused to read Dayton Walther's tendered instruction informing the jury that it could not award damages for emotional difficulties of Rhonda Caldwell resulting from the loss of her brother and friend in the collision.
The trial court did read the following instruction:
"If you find for the plaintiff, Rhonda Caldwell on the question of liability, on either legal paragraph of her complaint, then you must determine the amount of money which will fairly compensate her for any element of damages proved by the evidence to have resulted from the fault of one or more defendants. You may consider (a) the nature and extent of her injuries; (b) whether the injuries are temporary or permanent; (c) the physical pain and mental suffering experienced in the past and reasonably certain to be experienced in the future as a result of the injuries; (d) physical disfigurement or deformity resulting from the injuries; (e) the plaintiff's ability or inability to have and to enjoy the pleasures of life that only those who are possessed of sound body and free use of its members can enjoy.
You are to determine whether these elements of damage have been proved, by a consideration of the evidence relating to damages. Your verdict must be based on the evidence, and not on guess or speculation. Testimony on the monetary value of pain, suffering, disfigurement or deformity is not needed, however, for the jury to put a monetary value on such elements." (Our emphasis)
Dayton Walther argues:
". . . It is well establishd that it is reversible error for a court to refuse to instruct on an essential specific element of a case when there has been evidence supporting it, and when it is consistent with the theory of the case, and only a general instruction has been given in that area of law: Jackman v. Montgomery (1974), 162 Ind. App. 558, 320 N.E.2d 770; Barnes v. Deville (1973), 155 Ind. App. 387, 293 N.E.2d 54; Baltimore, etc. R. Co. v. Peck (1913), 53 Ind. App. 281, 101 N.E. 674."
In Jackman, supra, the trial court refused an instruction concerning an automobile driver's duty to keep a lookout for other travelers on the highway. No instruction given had provided a definition of lookout.
In Barnes, supra, the trial court refused an instruction which explained that the knowledge required as an element of wanton misconduct could be either actual or constructive. The various instructions given did not explain that the knowledge could be constructive.
In Peck, supra, Peck alleged that the railroad company had permitted a fire to escape from its right of way and damage Peck's property on or about October 1, 1908. Evidence was introduced suggesting that Peck's property had been damaged early in September 1908. The trial court refused instructions directing the jury to find in favor of the railroad company if the jury determined (a) that the railroad company set its fire October 1, 1908, and (b) that Peck's property was damaged prior to that date.
In the case at bar, however, the trial court did instruct the jury concerning the elements for which Rhonda Caldwell could recover damages. Dayton Walther does not challenge the [10] propriety of that instruction. Instead, it contends that the trial court should also have instructed the jury concerning the elements for which Rhonda Caldwell could not recover damages. While the reading of such an instruction would not necessarily have constituted error, we decline to impose a duty to read such a negative instruction when the jury has been properly instructed on the positive aspects of the same issue. See Richmond Gas Corp. v. Reeves, (1973) 158 Ind. App. 338, 302 N.E.2d 795. We must presume that the jury obeyed the instruction given. Dayton Walther has failed to cite authority on point for the proposition that refusal to give the negative instruction constituted error.
Dayton Walther asserts that the trial court erred in refusing to read the following instruction:
"No evidence has been presented concerning any lost earnings or as to the future earning capacity of Rhonda Caldwell or its diminishment. Accordingly, I instruct you as a matter of law you may not consider as an element of damages any losses of earnings or any loss of future earning ability which may have occurred, since that would involve impermissible speculation on your part."
We incorporate our statements made in regard to Issue Three. Additionally, in Cooper v. High, (1974) 262 Ind. 405, 410, 317 N.E.2d 177, 180, the trial court had refused an instruction which provided, ". . . Neither may you assess damages against the defendants for attorneys['] fees, trial preparation, or court costs, which plaintiff may have incurred. . . ." (Our insertion) Our Supreme Court held:
"No evidence was presented at the trial as to the attorneys['] fees, trial preparation or court costs. It would have been improper, therefore, for the trial court to give this instruction. . . ." (Our insertion)
Dayton Walther argues that the trial court erred in refusing to read its tendered instruction concerning recovery for future medical complications. This is another negative instruction. We incorporate our statements made in regard to Issue Three. Furthermore, by reading the instruction the trial court would have usurped the jury's duty of weighing the evidence.
Dayton Walther maintains that the trial court erred when it ordered a separate trial for the issues raised in the third party complaints filed by Dayton Walther against Campbell. Essentially, Dayton Walther insists that Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 14(C)4 controls in the case at bar rather than TR. 42(B);5 since Campbell did not request a separate trial until after Campbell filed its responsive pleading, Dayton Walther insists that the trial court was powerless to order a separate trial.
The construction which Dayton Walther imposes upon the procedural rules could lead to obvious problems and absurd results. If its reasoning were adopted, for example, a third party could prevent the trial court from ordering a separate trial simply by filing a motion for a separate trial the day after it filed its responsive pleading. We decline to construe the rules, in such a manner.
Dayton Walther cites City of Elkhart v. Middleton, (1976) 265 Ind. 514, 356 N.E.2d 207. The Supreme Court held therein that the trial court had erred in denying a motion to implead a third party. In the case at bar, the trial court permitted Dayton Walther to file its third party complaints but then determined that the issues raised by the third party complaints should be tried separately.
We agree that Middleton, supra, is helpful, however, despite the difference in facts. At page 521 of 265 Ind., at page 212 of 356 N.E.2d, Justice Prentice wrote:
"Impleader is basically a procedural device of expedience, but since certain circumstances cause it to fail in its purpose; i.e., when the addition of a party could contribute more problems than it would eliminate or alleviate, it is clear that a party cannot have his third-party claims adjudicated in the same action as of right. It is appropriate, therefore, for a trial court to consider the relative advantages of impleading a third-party as against the disadvantages which might result such as delay and complication of the trial, and the possibility that the plaintiff, third-party defendant, or both might be prejudiced. . . ." (Our emphasis).
T.R. 42(B) provides:
"(B) Separate trials. The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues, always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury." (Our emphasis)
The fact that the trial court permitted Dayton Walther to file its third party complaints did not prevent the trial court from reassessing the complexity of the causes of action after pretrial conferences had clarified the claims and issues.
The trial court ordered a separate trial after determining that the indemnification question would present too many complications at trial on the original complaints. Portions of the [11] evidence introduced with regard to the third party complaints would require instructions to the jury limiting its use of the evidence; the third party complaints would introduce new questions of privity; the nature of evidence which Campbell would need to present would depend upon whether the Caldwells recovered against Dayton Walther on their theory of negligence, theory of products liability, or both. The trial court could reasonably have found that an attempt to present such a complex case to the jury would cause prejudice to all of the parties.
We commend the trial courts for its superb efforts in overseeing the pre-trial proceedings. The record portrays admirably the conscientious and persistent efforts of the trial court to promote an expeditious and orderly completion of the litigation.
NOTE — Reported at 402 N.E.2d 1252.
In Dayton Walther Corp. v. Caldwell, 273 Ind. 191, 198-99, 402 N.E.2d 1252, 1256 (Ind. 1980), this Court held that the trial court did not err in overruling an objection to evidence of the increased risk of meningitis and epilepsy caused by the defendant's negligence.
Summary of this case from Alexander v. Scheid


This contest, promoted by the City Council of Granollers, is part of the games-fair Fira Jugar x Jugar. It is organized in the context of Fira de l'Ascenció, to be held at Granollers (Spain), on May.
The contest is open to all game-designers, without any age limitation. Any non-published games may be submitted, except games for only one-player, or computer games.
In the 4º edition (2010) the contest are international. 185 games were submitted.
1. The contest is open to all game-designers, without any age limitation. Any non-published games may be submitted, except games for only one-player, or computer games.
NOTE: Both, games published by companies and indie-games published by the author are not eligible. However, games only published in Internet may be submitted.
4. The applicants should send the rules of the game and a photograph of the components. The rules length is limited to 6500 characters. They will also send a data-sheet with the author data (name, address, telephone number, and electronic mail address) and the following game data: name, class (for children, family game, expert gamers, others), age of the players, approximate length of a session, components of the game, description of a game turn. All this documentation may be sent printed or in a CD, using exclusively the .pdf or .doc formats. The documentation should be written in Spanish or Catalan languages. If one designer sends more than one game, they may be in the same CD, as far as the information of the games are properly classified.
5. The organizers will send an acknowledgment of receipt of the documentation dossiers submitted. These dossiers will not be returned to the author by any means.
6. The authors of the pre-selected games will be notified be electronic mail by March 30, 2007, and they will be required to send a full playable model of the game, up to April 10, 2007. They should be sent in a container, rigid-enough to be sent back to the author. Postal stamps should be included to sent back the packet by certified post. The organizers will not be hold liable for any damages that the model may suffer during the travel. To guarantee a blind review of the games, the name of the author should not be included in any part of the game documentation (rules, board and/or other elements of the box, etc.) If any personal data is included it will be crossed-out or erased.
7. The pre-selected games will be tested, and a maximum of 10 will be further selected before the Committee meeting. The authors of the finalist games will receive a notification by electronic mail by May 10, 2007.
8. A Committee of game-specialists will meet at Granollers on May 11,12 and 13, to select the winner of the Primer Concurso de creación de juegos Ciutat de Granollers. The Committee decision will be definitive, no appealing process against it will be accepted. The Committee will value the originality, playability, adaptation to different public classes, and the cultural values of the finalist games. By no means the committee will value the graphic design or layout of the models.
9. The winner model will be held by the Council of Granollers. The others will be sent back to their authors by certified mail.
10. The decision of the Committee will be announced on May 19, 2007, during the fair Jugar x Jugar. The winner of the contest will be invited to Granollers to assist to the fair, with the travel expenses and lodging allowances paid, for her and one other person. The winner will receive a prize of 500 Euros.
11. The organizers will send information about the winner game to the main Spanish game-publishers.
12. The participants of this contest must abide the full content of these rules.


Our employees are our most important asset – and our Workforce Plan outlines how we can get the best from everyone.
Scottish Natural Heritage must successfully recruit, motivate, develop, train and retain the right people to work with us. Only by doing so can we deliver the best for the natural heritage.
Our future success as a trusted and highly respected organisation also depends wholly on the commitment and dedication of our people.
We're recruiting! Our dedicated and committed team is our greatest asset. Find out more about working for us.


This is the #2378 Milwaukee Road AA Set that Williams made a few years ago. Our Opinion is that the Set is generally in Mint Condition. Original Box, sealed. All Original in our Opinion. Please add $28.00 for US-48 Shipping and Insurance.