Latest / Bloomberg Law / Can Trump Serve a Third Term & Wrongful Death Trial of Pitcher Tyler Skaggs

Transcript

Can Trump Serve a Third Term & Wrongful Death Trial of Pitcher Tyler Skaggs · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: President Donald Trump has once again suggested he'd like to
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: extend his stay at sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue for a
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: third term.
• 0:18
  Speaker 3: I would love to do it. I have my best numbers.
• 0:21
  Speaker 4: Ever, it's very terrible. I have my best snubber.
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: Trump has frequently flirted with the idea of a third
• 0:26
  Speaker 2: term while saying he doesn't want to talk about it.
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: For example, in March, just a little over a month
• 0:32
  Speaker 2: into his second term, I want to talk about it.
• 0:35
  Speaker 3: I'm just telling you.
• 0:36
  Speaker 2: I have had more people say please run again. I said,
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: we have a long way to go before we even
• 0:42
  Speaker 2: think about that.
• 0:44
  Speaker 5: They do say there's a way you can do it.
• 0:46
  Speaker 4: But I don't know about that.
• 0:47
  Speaker 5: But I have not looked into it.
• 0:49
  Speaker 2: But this time. There are also those Trump twenty twenty
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: eight red baseball caps that sat on his desk during
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: a meeting with congressional leaders this month. There's the think
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: tank call called Third Term Project. And there is the
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: Justice Department lawyer who, during oral arguments at the Sixth
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: Circuit Court of Appeals referred to a new administration being
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: in place quote three years in the future or seven
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: years in the future. Joining me is constitutional law expert
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law. So, David, I
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: reread the twenty second Amendment. It plainly states that no
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: one can be elected president more than twice. I mean,
• 1:29
  Speaker 2: how plain is it? How clear is it?
• 1:32
  Speaker 3: It could not be clearer and it could not be plainer.
• 1:36
  Speaker 3: It's short, it's sweet, it's to the point, and they
• 1:40
  Speaker 3: are not allowing anyone to run for a third term.
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: Now, there are different kinds of scenarios out there that
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: Trump allies have put forward. One of the arguments is
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: that the twenty second Amendment only explicitly bars a person
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: from being elected to more than two presidential terms, but
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: doesn't say anything about serving a third term. So the
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: theory is that Trump could run as vice president and
• 2:08
  Speaker 2: then have whatever lucky candidate for president it is resign
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: and then Trump takes the White House.
• 2:15
  Speaker 4: That doesn't work either, because of the twelfth Amendment, which
• 2:18
  Speaker 4: says that any candidate for vice president must be constitutionally
• 2:23
  Speaker 4: qualified to serve as president, which mister Trump isn't.
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: In fact, Trump himself sort of dismissed that he said
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: I'd be allowed to do that, but I think people
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: wouldn't like that. It's too cute. Also, didn't Vladimir Putin
• 2:40
  Speaker 2: sort of do something like that years ago where he
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: put a deputy in to serve in his place for
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: one term and then he took over.
• 2:49
  Speaker 4: It's rather disappointing that this country is taking its political
• 2:53
  Speaker 4: lessons from Russia these days. But yes, what Putin did
• 2:57
  Speaker 4: was stepped down from being president for one term and
• 3:02
  Speaker 4: let a trusted ally of his serve as a figurehead
• 3:08
  Speaker 4: president while Putin ran things as Prime minister, then came
• 3:12
  Speaker 4: back and became president again. A few problems with that.
• 3:16
  Speaker 4: One is it's too cute. Two is we don't have
• 3:20
  Speaker 4: prime ministerships here, so there's no obvious alternate role for
• 3:25
  Speaker 4: Trump to go into to serve it. Three, Russia's limit
• 3:28
  Speaker 4: is on consecutive terms. The twenty second Amendment is a
• 3:32
  Speaker 4: limit on total terms. And four, why are we taking
• 3:35
  Speaker 4: our political lessons from Russia?
• 3:37
  Speaker 2: And just explain to get rid of the twenty second Amendment?
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: What would it take?
• 3:41
  Speaker 4: Repealing the twenty second Amendment would take a two thirds
• 3:44
  Speaker 4: vote from both chambers of Congress and ratification by three
• 3:50
  Speaker 4: quarters of the states, which is thirty eight states, so
• 3:54
  Speaker 4: you would need ratification from states like Connecticut and Massachusetts.
• 4:00
  Speaker 4: Now I don't think those states are going to be
• 4:01
  Speaker 4: working very hard to get mister Trump a third term.
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: Another theory is that Trump could become the Speaker of
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: the House, which apparently posits that it's easy to be
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: elected Speaker of the House, and then if both the
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: president and vice president, who would have to be Trump
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: Ally's resign.
• 4:20
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 4:20
  Speaker 4: I keep sending in my resume to be Speaker of
• 4:23
  Speaker 4: the House and nothing ever happens. I'm not sure what
• 4:25
  Speaker 4: the problem is in theory that could be said to
• 4:31
  Speaker 4: be valid. The Speaker of the House is elected, and
• 4:36
  Speaker 4: if the purpose of electing mister Trump speaker is to
• 4:39
  Speaker 4: make him president, I think there's an argument that that
• 4:42
  Speaker 4: would also violate the twenty second Amendment of the Contitution.
• 4:48
  Speaker 4: But it certainly puts a thumb in the eye of
• 4:52
  Speaker 4: popular intent. We had had a four term president, President Roosevelt.
• 4:57
  Speaker 4: The country across all political lines can included that that
• 5:00
  Speaker 4: was too much power for any individual to have, that
• 5:04
  Speaker 4: it resembled authoritarian countries too much, and we decided we
• 5:08
  Speaker 4: didn't want to do that anymore. And this is yet
• 5:12
  Speaker 4: again mister Trump and his allies disregarding the people's choice
• 5:18
  Speaker 4: through their constitution.
• 5:20
  Speaker 2: Have you heard any other theories of how he could
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: become president for a third term and then the other one.
• 5:25
  Speaker 4: I guess it's very straightforward. Just do it and see
• 5:28
  Speaker 4: if anyone stops you. And this Supreme Court has been
• 5:33
  Speaker 4: willing to avoid a number of constitutional violations and most
• 5:41
  Speaker 4: obviously declining to consider or allow anyone else to consider
• 5:47
  Speaker 4: whether mister Trump was disqualified under the insurrection clause of
• 5:52
  Speaker 4: the fourteenth Amendment. He may just take the position that
• 5:56
  Speaker 4: he can run, he can do it, and he doesn't
• 5:58
  Speaker 4: think anyone will stop him.
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: I guess this is hopeful in a sense, because he's
• 6:03
  Speaker 2: still talking about running and having an election rather than
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: just staying in office.
• 6:09
  Speaker 4: Well, there has been talk in the past that he
• 6:14
  Speaker 4: might do something like what you're suggesting. He made some
• 6:18
  Speaker 4: comments about that in twenty twenty, which I hope were
• 6:24
  Speaker 4: not taken very seriously. Certainly didn't deserve to be taken
• 6:27
  Speaker 4: very seriously. But some of his supporters have suggested that
• 6:32
  Speaker 4: he could somehow declare some kind of a state of emergency.
• 6:37
  Speaker 4: Someone called it a sovereignty crisis and suspend elections on
• 6:41
  Speaker 4: that basis, there's no authority whatsoever in the Constitution for that,
• 6:46
  Speaker 4: So if he were to do that, he would effectively
• 6:48
  Speaker 4: be repudiating the Constitution.
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: And you think that the Supreme Court might not even
• 6:54
  Speaker 2: step in if he decides to run for a third term.
• 6:58
  Speaker 4: No, I think they would. I think this Court is
• 7:02
  Speaker 4: hoping against hope that he won't force their hand by
• 7:06
  Speaker 4: doing something completely delegitimizing. But I don't believe that there
• 7:11
  Speaker 4: are five justices who have so totally lost faith in
• 7:15
  Speaker 4: the country that they would put up with that.
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: I mean, it could be he's trolling the Democrats, he's
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: entertaining his base, he doesn't want to look like a
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: lame duck, or he just wants to continue to be
• 7:26
  Speaker 2: the center of attention with this speculation.
• 7:30
  Speaker 4: Yes, I think so. Presidents have often had a lot
• 7:33
  Speaker 4: of trouble in their second terms in office. President Reagan
• 7:39
  Speaker 4: was unstoppable in his first term and stumbled quite badly
• 7:43
  Speaker 4: in his second. President Bush was very strong in his
• 7:48
  Speaker 4: first and got the Great Recession and Hurricane Katrina in
• 7:53
  Speaker 4: the second. President Obama lost all kinds of esteem by
• 7:57
  Speaker 4: his second term, And I think President Trump does want
• 8:00
  Speaker 4: to follow that example and was.
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: It President Reagan who suggested getting rid of the twenty
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: second Amendment.
• 8:08
  Speaker 3: He did.
• 8:08
  Speaker 4: I'm not sure how seriously. A number of presidents get
• 8:13
  Speaker 4: fond of the job and start thinking that the twenty
• 8:16
  Speaker 4: second Amendment is a bad idea, but I don't think
• 8:19
  Speaker 4: anyone took him very seriously or move very far with it,
• 8:23
  Speaker 4: in part because President Reagan was already quite a fan stage.
• 8:27
  Speaker 4: Of course, President Trump is much older.
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: And Trump would be the oldest president in history by
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: the time he leaves office, assuming, of course, that he
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: leaves at the end of his second term. Trump has
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: already done so much to expand his presidential authority. It's
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: not even a year into his second term. He's used
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: the specter of emergencies to impose tariffs, to send the
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: military into democratic led cities, and to shoot at supposed
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: Venezuelan drug runners at see. Have you ever seen a
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: president in these circumstances of peacetime exercised so much power,
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: often using the military.
• 9:09
  Speaker 4: Now, there's nothing remotely close to this. Richard Dixon was accused,
• 9:13
  Speaker 4: with some justification of trying to build an imperial presidency,
• 9:18
  Speaker 4: but I can't think of anything that mister Nixon tried
• 9:21
  Speaker 4: to do that mister Trump hasn't done much more of
• 9:25
  Speaker 4: And I can think of many things that mister Trump
• 9:27
  Speaker 4: has done that mister Nixon never dreamed of doing. President
• 9:31
  Speaker 4: Lincoln used a great many powers during the Civil War,
• 9:35
  Speaker 4: some of which may have exceeded his constitutional authority, not
• 9:40
  Speaker 4: on the level of what we're seeing here.
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: David, do you think that of the Supreme Court cases
• 9:46
  Speaker 2: coming up that are going to test presidential authority, is
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: the Tariff's case the most significant or is there another
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: one that's more significant.
• 9:58
  Speaker 4: The Tariff's case is extremely significant because the Supreme Court
• 10:04
  Speaker 4: is filled with self defined textualists, and it's almost impossible
• 10:11
  Speaker 4: to find anything like the powers the President is claiming
• 10:16
  Speaker 4: in the text of the statute he is citing. So
• 10:19
  Speaker 4: the Court is going to have to either abandon any
• 10:23
  Speaker 4: pretense of textualism or limit the president's authority very dramatically.
• 10:29
  Speaker 3: There.
• 10:30
  Speaker 4: The other case that I'm watching very closely is the
• 10:33
  Speaker 4: case involving doctor Cook in the Federal Reserve, because the
• 10:37
  Speaker 4: Supreme Court basically told President Trump, you can fire anyone
• 10:42
  Speaker 4: except a Federal Reserve governor, and he turned around and
• 10:45
  Speaker 4: fired a Federal Reserve governor. If the Supreme Court is
• 10:49
  Speaker 4: willing to let him do that. Then they are effectively
• 10:52
  Speaker 4: allowing themselves to be humiliated by the President, and we
• 10:56
  Speaker 4: can't really expect much of them going forward.
• 11:00
  Speaker 2: Think of Trump saying he's going to attend the Supreme
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: Court oral arguments on the tariffs.
• 11:06
  Speaker 4: I think oral arguments are fascinating and you think for
• 11:09
  Speaker 4: a good time. I think with most courts, when a
• 11:13
  Speaker 4: party seeks to pressure them, the court feels considerable pressure
• 11:18
  Speaker 4: to demonstrate its independence. If I were a lawyer at
• 11:23
  Speaker 4: the White House or Justice Department, I would beg him
• 11:25
  Speaker 4: not to do that.
• 11:27
  Speaker 2: We will find out on November fifth whether he attends
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: the oral arguments or not. Thanks so much, David. That's
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: Professor David Super of Georgetown Law. Coming up next on
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Law Show, we'll look at the wrongful death
• 11:42
  Speaker 2: trial of Los Angeles pitcher Tyler Skaggs. His wife and
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: parents are suing the Los Angeles Angels for more than
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: one hundred million dollars. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: to Bloomberg.
• 11:54
  Speaker 4: Tyler Skagg's taking them out for the Angels.
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: Tyler Skaggs a picture for the Los Angele Angelus Angels
• 12:01
  Speaker 2: was just twenty seven years old when he died of
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: a drug overdose while on the road with the team.
• 12:07
  Speaker 2: Three years later, Eric Kay, the former Angels communications director,
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: was convicted of supplying Skags with a counterfeit oxy codone
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: pill laced with fentanol. He was sentenced to twenty two
• 12:20
  Speaker 2: years in prison. Now, Skag's wife and his parents are
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: suing the Angels, claiming the team knew or should have known,
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: that Kay was supplying drugs to players. They're asking for
• 12:32
  Speaker 2: eighteen million dollars for Skag's lost earnings, as well as
• 12:36
  Speaker 2: compensation for the family's suffering and punitive damages. Here are
• 12:41
  Speaker 2: Skag's wife and mother after Kay's conviction.
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: I miss Tyler so much. He was he was my
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: only son, and you know, I'm not going to be
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: a grandma. I'm not going to be able to hold
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: a grandchild, and those things are painful. I think about
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: that all the time.
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: I wonder sometimes ever be as happy as I was.
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: The Angels say that team officials didn't know Skaggs was
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: taking drugs, and that any drug activity involving him and
• 13:12
  Speaker 2: Kay happened on their own time. My guest is healthcare
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: attorney Harry Nelson, a partner at leech Tishman Nelson Hardiman.
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: He's the author of the book The United States of Opioids.
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: Harry Skaggs died in twenty nineteen, and the civil trial
• 13:30
  Speaker 2: has just started. Tell us about the family's claims and
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: the Los Angeles Angels defense.
• 13:38
  Speaker 5: So, Tyler Skaggs died in twenty nineteen in the hotel
• 13:41
  Speaker 5: room on this baseball trip with Los Angeles Angels, and
• 13:45
  Speaker 5: his family, both his parents and his widow brought us
• 13:48
  Speaker 5: civil trials arguing that the Angels had a duty to
• 13:52
  Speaker 5: protect Tyler and that they breached that duty by allowing
• 13:56
  Speaker 5: this communications director or former communications director from the team
• 14:00
  Speaker 5: give the players access to drugs and essentially to fetch
• 14:04
  Speaker 5: them for players, and that the team should be held
• 14:06
  Speaker 5: liable for the death and for a significant amount of
• 14:11
  Speaker 5: lost earnings up to potentially at least two hundred million,
• 14:14
  Speaker 5: I think is an argument. And then the question is
• 14:16
  Speaker 5: really what the duty of the team, the baseball team,
• 14:20
  Speaker 5: it's agents and supervisors had to protect him from the
• 14:23
  Speaker 5: harm of drug use and access to a supplier of drugs.
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: Is the judge going to tell the jury what the
• 14:30
  Speaker 2: duty is. Who's going to decide what the duty is.
• 14:33
  Speaker 5: Yeah, so the question of legal duty is a question
• 14:36
  Speaker 5: of law that a judge is going to have to
• 14:37
  Speaker 5: instruct the jury on. That will be part of the
• 14:40
  Speaker 5: jury instructions that stuff parties are going to make arguments on.
• 14:43
  Speaker 5: And the real question is, we know that teams have
• 14:46
  Speaker 5: a duty to protect players from foreseeable harm, and the
• 14:51
  Speaker 5: question is really whether the harm in this case of
• 14:54
  Speaker 5: drug use of access to suppliers was a foreseeable harm.
• 14:58
  Speaker 5: And then, of course the next question being whether the
• 15:00
  Speaker 5: team breached that duty by allowing k communications director access
• 15:05
  Speaker 5: to the players, by failing to supervise him, by failing
• 15:08
  Speaker 5: to intervene as the family allege as they did.
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: What's the defense. What are the angels saying?
• 15:14
  Speaker 5: The team's defense is that this is not something that
• 15:17
  Speaker 5: they knew or could have known about, that Tylers Skaggs
• 15:21
  Speaker 5: was a high performing player who appeared to be, you know,
• 15:25
  Speaker 5: appropriately acting as part of the team, that there was
• 15:28
  Speaker 5: no evidence of at risk behavior of sort of bad
• 15:33
  Speaker 5: conduct off the field or anything unsafe, and that they
• 15:37
  Speaker 5: behaved reasonably in the way that they acted, and that
• 15:40
  Speaker 5: they didn't have that responsibility to manage this problem or
• 15:45
  Speaker 5: the person who's really the focus of the allegations here.
• 15:48
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it seems like the plaintiff's whole case is based
• 15:52
  Speaker 2: on this Eric Kay, who is sitting in prison with
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: a twenty two year sentence.
• 15:59
  Speaker 5: Yeah, it really does. That's really the core argument, because
• 16:02
  Speaker 5: you know, it's very difficult to see how you know,
• 16:06
  Speaker 5: a sports team or any organization can manage behaviors that's
• 16:10
  Speaker 5: out of sight where there aren't warning signs, and even
• 16:12
  Speaker 5: you know, even the plane iff witnesses. Steve Trout, the
• 16:15
  Speaker 5: legendary player who testified this past week, said that there
• 16:18
  Speaker 5: was nothing that he saw in Tyler Skaggs that was
• 16:21
  Speaker 5: any kind of bad behavior or a warning sign, And
• 16:23
  Speaker 5: everything seems to be hanging on Eric k and the
• 16:26
  Speaker 5: warning signs that there was something going on, and that,
• 16:28
  Speaker 5: by the way, is very interesting. Steve Trout testified that
• 16:31
  Speaker 5: there were a lot of unusual behaviors in Kay. It
• 16:35
  Speaker 5: was sort of almost like a gesture in the most
• 16:38
  Speaker 5: benign sense, but obviously was doing some really terrible things
• 16:41
  Speaker 5: in terms of functioning as a drug dealer or Tyler
• 16:44
  Speaker 5: and other players.
• 16:45
  Speaker 2: During K's criminal trial, Skagg's wife said that she didn't
• 16:49
  Speaker 2: know about his drug use, so if she doesn't know
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: about his drug use, then how is the team supposed
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: to know?
• 16:55
  Speaker 5: It's a fair question, right, Clearly, Tyler Scaggs was able
• 16:58
  Speaker 5: to keep his drug use from from people very close
• 17:00
  Speaker 5: to him and even his wife, So it is tricky
• 17:03
  Speaker 5: to know. And at the same time, you know, we
• 17:05
  Speaker 5: do in our society hold employers responsible for the behavior
• 17:10
  Speaker 5: of their employees. That's known, and so eric K, there
• 17:13
  Speaker 5: clearly were concerns there was something going on with him
• 17:16
  Speaker 5: that he himself was behaving in sort of disturbing ways.
• 17:20
  Speaker 5: So it's a tough call. I mean, I think it's
• 17:22
  Speaker 5: fair to say that the Angels, you know, could have
• 17:25
  Speaker 5: easily behaved reasonably and missed anything going on with Tyler's Staggs.
• 17:29
  Speaker 5: But clearly there was something unusual about eric K and
• 17:33
  Speaker 5: his behavior.
• 17:34
  Speaker 2: Now where does it fit in that there was evidence
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: that Skaggs used drugs when he was with the Diamondbacks,
• 17:43
  Speaker 2: and that again during Cay's criminal trial, his mother testified
• 17:48
  Speaker 2: that her son had an issue with oxy codone going
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: back to twenty thirteen. He wasn't prescribed opioids after undergoing
• 17:57
  Speaker 2: Tommy John's surgery in August twenty four because of that.
• 18:02
  Speaker 5: That's also, yeah, another dimension the case, sort of player safety,
• 18:05
  Speaker 5: in terms of how much the team should have known.
• 18:07
  Speaker 5: The Angels are arguing, of course this Gags had this
• 18:09
  Speaker 5: prior drug problems in the past, that he was drinking heavily,
• 18:13
  Speaker 5: that he was getting killed from other places. But the
• 18:15
  Speaker 5: point is actually, I think a strong one that the
• 18:18
  Speaker 5: family is making here, which is that there was a
• 18:20
  Speaker 5: warning sign. You know, the team should have known because
• 18:23
  Speaker 5: this player, you know, players in general, are at risk
• 18:27
  Speaker 5: of so much physical and emotional mental strain in the
• 18:31
  Speaker 5: work that they're doing, that they're inherently at risk for
• 18:34
  Speaker 5: pains and for addiction, and that the team had a
• 18:38
  Speaker 5: duty to be more proactive in how it's monitored access
• 18:41
  Speaker 5: to the drugs themselves. So I think it's a really
• 18:43
  Speaker 5: interesting issue and it could have a profound impact on
• 18:47
  Speaker 5: how sports teams generally are monitoring risks around control substances,
• 18:52
  Speaker 5: not only how they screen employees and non players, but
• 18:56
  Speaker 5: also how they think about, you know, the risks associated
• 18:59
  Speaker 5: with game and with you know, its impact on players.
• 19:03
  Speaker 2: How much responsibility does Skags have for his own behavior,
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: you know, knowing that he had these drug problems, etc.
• 19:12
  Speaker 2: Doesn't he have some responsibility as well.
• 19:15
  Speaker 5: Look, I think that is kind of the tragedy of
• 19:18
  Speaker 5: you know, the opioid crisis writ large. Obviously, Skags was
• 19:24
  Speaker 5: taking enormous personal risk and really engaging in self destructive behavior.
• 19:29
  Speaker 5: And you know, that's the case essentially in a way,
• 19:32
  Speaker 5: that's that's every case of addiction. But we noticed it
• 19:36
  Speaker 5: just heres, particularly because this was such a supreme talent
• 19:40
  Speaker 5: so young, you know, lost as a result of it.
• 19:43
  Speaker 5: But I do think this really is a deep question
• 19:46
  Speaker 5: within the opiated crisis. The bottom line is, yes, the
• 19:48
  Speaker 5: people who are engaging in drug use have responsibility for
• 19:52
  Speaker 5: their conduct. But that's what we are, right and the
• 19:55
  Speaker 5: question is what do we do and where do we
• 19:56
  Speaker 5: lay down the duty of opposing safety be externally and
• 20:01
  Speaker 5: accountability externally because people like Tyler Skaggs are taking risks
• 20:07
  Speaker 5: that they simply should not be.
• 20:09
  Speaker 2: So the cause of death and the angel's attorney brought
• 20:12
  Speaker 2: this out. The autopsy showed levels of xy codone, fentanyl,
• 20:17
  Speaker 2: and alcohol, and he said that Skags died due to
• 20:21
  Speaker 2: his reckless decision to mix large amounts of alcohol with narcotics.
• 20:27
  Speaker 5: So clearly, you know, this is the classic example you
• 20:30
  Speaker 5: learn in the first year of law school about contributing factors. Right,
• 20:33
  Speaker 5: alcohol was clearly a contributing factor, although there's no evidence
• 20:37
  Speaker 5: that had Tyler Skaggs simply been drinking that night that
• 20:40
  Speaker 5: he would have died, So it was therefore not the
• 20:42
  Speaker 5: soul cause. So there has to be some breakdown. He
• 20:45
  Speaker 5: was hit some level of fentanyl, some level of oxycodon,
• 20:47
  Speaker 5: some level of alcohol that combined to cause him badly
• 20:52
  Speaker 5: to choke on his own vomit effectively under the three substances.
• 20:55
  Speaker 5: So you know, the role of alcohol as a contributing
• 20:58
  Speaker 5: factor some that definitely intoxicated him and made things worse
• 21:03
  Speaker 5: is something that the jury will and the judge will
• 21:05
  Speaker 5: have to take into acount what that role was. He
• 21:07
  Speaker 5: clearly made a choice to drink significantly that night, which
• 21:11
  Speaker 5: was part of the chain of causation here. But it's
• 21:13
  Speaker 5: pretty clear that had he not had the bentanyl lace
• 21:17
  Speaker 5: pills that Airk supplied, we wouldn't be where we are
• 21:21
  Speaker 5: and he wouldn't have died that night.
• 21:23
  Speaker 2: So Eric Kay was convicted of supplying Skags with a
• 21:28
  Speaker 2: counterfeit oxycodone pill laced with phent and al. Since it
• 21:32
  Speaker 2: was counterfeit, does that mean that there were other harmful
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: ingredients besides those in the pills.
• 21:39
  Speaker 5: Now, the pills here were fentanyl lace, they were counterfeited pills.
• 21:43
  Speaker 5: So essentially, you know, like so many people have died
• 21:45
  Speaker 5: in the in this crisis, it's clear that you know,
• 21:49
  Speaker 5: er k unwittingly gave counterfeit pills that were significantly fentanyl.
• 21:55
  Speaker 5: It appears that there was some mix of fentyl ox coota,
• 21:58
  Speaker 5: and it's not clear to me whether those were like
• 22:00
  Speaker 5: different pills. It's clear that Eric Kaye was like many people,
• 22:05
  Speaker 5: buying things that he thought were oxy codone and in
• 22:08
  Speaker 5: fact were you know, street based toxic sentinel that he
• 22:11
  Speaker 5: was delivering to tylish guys.
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: When deciding on the damages related to Skaggs lost earnings,
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: he was in the starting lineup, but apparently struggling with injuries.
• 22:23
  Speaker 2: So how will each side approach this and how will
• 22:27
  Speaker 2: the jury make a final determination, because with the injuries
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: and the drug use, it might be hard to tell
• 22:34
  Speaker 2: how successful he would have been.
• 22:37
  Speaker 5: The damages in these cases in case like this are
• 22:39
  Speaker 5: a combination of pain and suffering and lost earnings. And
• 22:42
  Speaker 5: as you're eluding, lost earnings is the big variable, you know,
• 22:46
  Speaker 5: potentially and then of course punitive damages. So you know,
• 22:49
  Speaker 5: my view of these cases is that even if the
• 22:52
  Speaker 5: jury holds the Angel responsible, which if I had to
• 22:56
  Speaker 5: make a bet here I would, I think is the
• 22:58
  Speaker 5: way this case will go, the jury will tell us
• 23:00
  Speaker 5: a lot by the amount of damages that they hold
• 23:04
  Speaker 5: the team responsible for, you know, the plain of star
• 23:06
  Speaker 5: hoping that the jury may you know, impose as much
• 23:09
  Speaker 5: as you know, a billion or half a million dollars
• 23:11
  Speaker 5: of damages when you had impunitives here. The highly specular part,
• 23:15
  Speaker 5: of course, is how far the lost earnings would go.
• 23:19
  Speaker 5: And it's anyone's guess how this jury is going to go.
• 23:22
  Speaker 5: I always look at these damage awards and think that
• 23:24
  Speaker 5: there's a largely emotional component in terms of how the jurors,
• 23:29
  Speaker 5: you know, how much anger and how strong of a
• 23:32
  Speaker 5: message they're trying to send to the team about this case.
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with healthcare attorney
• 23:39
  Speaker 2: Harry Nelson. This seems like a case that could have
• 23:43
  Speaker 2: settled before trial. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
• 23:51
  Speaker 2: The wrongful death trial of Los Angeles Angels Pitcher Tyler
• 23:55
  Speaker 2: Skaggs comes more than six years after, he was found
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: dead in a bourbon Dallas hotel room where he was
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: staying as the Angels were supposed to open a four
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: game series against the Texas Rangers. A coroner's report said
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: that Skaggs choked to death on his vomit, and a
• 24:12
  Speaker 2: toxic mix of alcohol, fentanyl, and oxycodone was found in
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: his system. Eric Kaye was convicted in twenty twenty two
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: of providing Skags with a counterfeit oxycodone pill laced with fentanyl.
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: I've been talking to healthcare attorney Harry Nelson of Leech
• 24:29
  Speaker 2: Tishman Nelson Hardiman. Harry, you think that the plaintiffs will
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: win here, so Skagg's wife and his parents. Why did
• 24:38
  Speaker 2: you come to that conclusion.
• 24:41
  Speaker 5: I just think Tyler's widow, I think his family are
• 24:44
  Speaker 5: you deeply sympathetic? And I think this is a case.
• 24:49
  Speaker 5: As much as this problem of opioid overdose death is
• 24:53
  Speaker 5: a just profound national crisis, Tyler Skaggs has become uniquely
• 24:58
  Speaker 5: a symbol. And it does appear that the team you know,
• 25:02
  Speaker 5: was a part of the circumstances that led to it,
• 25:06
  Speaker 5: in terms of allowing someone like Eric kay into an
• 25:09
  Speaker 5: official team position. It wasn't just like he was part
• 25:12
  Speaker 5: of Tyler Skagg's entourage. And I think in general, when
• 25:15
  Speaker 5: you read the coverage, I do think that is a
• 25:18
  Speaker 5: unique problem that the angel stays here and that makes
• 25:21
  Speaker 5: this an uphill double for them.
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: I understand that you know the wife's suing. Is it
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: unusual to have the parents suing.
• 25:28
  Speaker 5: No, A lot of these cases are initiated by parents.
• 25:30
  Speaker 5: You know. Unfortunately, in a crisis is affecting so many
• 25:32
  Speaker 5: young people, you have so many people who are unmarried
• 25:36
  Speaker 5: or who never had children, and so it's very common
• 25:39
  Speaker 5: to see the family doing I think the Tyler Skag's
• 25:41
  Speaker 5: family have been particularly articulate about this tragedy and that
• 25:46
  Speaker 5: have made it into a symbol. But unfortunately, I know
• 25:48
  Speaker 5: too many parents who are in the same position and
• 25:52
  Speaker 5: just looking somewhere for relief. And very few times can
• 25:55
  Speaker 5: you point to an organization like a professional baseball team
• 25:59
  Speaker 5: and say they're responsible. So many of these opioid overdose
• 26:02
  Speaker 5: deaths there's an anonymous drug dealer and nobody to actually
• 26:06
  Speaker 5: hold financially responsible. So that's another piece of this case.
• 26:10
  Speaker 5: It's very unusual.
• 26:11
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I was going to ask you whether you've seen
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: any other cases involving opioid deaths where the employer was responsible.
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: I guess baseball's kind of a different scenario.
• 26:21
  Speaker 5: Professional sports are certainly, you know, unusual. We've seen it
• 26:25
  Speaker 5: also in healthcare. Actually, the thing about professional sports and
• 26:29
  Speaker 5: frankly sports at all, you know, at college level as well,
• 26:32
  Speaker 5: is that you have these medical operations around the team
• 26:37
  Speaker 5: that lead to a much higher level of access. We
• 26:40
  Speaker 5: of course see the same thing with celebrities who are
• 26:43
  Speaker 5: able to have you know, doctors at the ready, ready
• 26:46
  Speaker 5: to get them whatever they need, and we've seen so
• 26:48
  Speaker 5: many of those crises. Occasionally, we do see in the
• 26:51
  Speaker 5: healthcare system the fact that people's proximity allows them if
• 26:55
  Speaker 5: there isn't care taken around controlled substance access there too,
• 26:58
  Speaker 5: But that is a very unusual faster than this case,
• 27:00
  Speaker 5: and I think one of the reasons why it's forcing
• 27:03
  Speaker 5: us to confront these questions of duty in ways that
• 27:06
  Speaker 5: I think we'll ripple out and affect a lot more
• 27:08
  Speaker 5: of how people think about the responsibility to be watching
• 27:11
  Speaker 5: out and protecting people from this risk.
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: This does seem like a case that should have settled
• 27:17
  Speaker 2: before trial.
• 27:19
  Speaker 5: Yeah, you know, I can't speak to the negotiations here.
• 27:22
  Speaker 5: But I don't think that the team views it as
• 27:25
  Speaker 5: a success that this case went to trial. I do
• 27:28
  Speaker 5: know that there were offers, but the family I don't
• 27:31
  Speaker 5: know to what extent they decided to go to trials
• 27:33
  Speaker 5: simply to make sure that this case received attention and
• 27:37
  Speaker 5: to deal with the problem on a bigger level. But
• 27:39
  Speaker 5: clearly the exposure of the team again which people are
• 27:43
  Speaker 5: saying if the punitive damage is numbers were validated, could
• 27:47
  Speaker 5: go up to a billion or more dollars, is really
• 27:50
  Speaker 5: really substantial. So the fact that this case did not
• 27:52
  Speaker 5: settle earlier is not a good thing for the team.
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: Up to a billion. I know that some jury verdicts
• 27:59
  Speaker 2: have been just through the roof lately, but how do
• 28:02
  Speaker 2: they reach a billion dollars here from the one hundred
• 28:05
  Speaker 2: and eighteen million in lost earnings.
• 28:08
  Speaker 5: No, that's with the punitive damage numbers that the planet's
• 28:10
  Speaker 5: lawyers have asked for. But I will not be surprised
• 28:14
  Speaker 5: to see this case have a nine figure settlement, meaning
• 28:17
  Speaker 5: hundreds of millions of dollars. So I think you know
• 28:19
  Speaker 5: the Angels are at risk. You can argue all you
• 28:21
  Speaker 5: want that Tyler Keag never would have you know rebounded
• 28:24
  Speaker 5: and been a great player. But I think when people
• 28:27
  Speaker 5: are looking at a young man with so much potential,
• 28:30
  Speaker 5: I think the natural tendency is going to be to
• 28:33
  Speaker 5: assume that the last earnings are real and to give
• 28:37
  Speaker 5: a substantial reward here, Harry.
• 28:39
  Speaker 2: Don't you think that jury's have been sort of giving
• 28:42
  Speaker 2: out judgments that reflect jackpot lottery winnings. Even in cases
• 28:48
  Speaker 2: involving a single plaintiff. Jury verdicts are just exploding.
• 28:52
  Speaker 5: No, quite, Look, we see it in our cases that
• 28:54
  Speaker 5: we're handling. There's no question about this whole issue of
• 28:57
  Speaker 5: jury insulation and this trend of much higher award in
• 29:01
  Speaker 5: wrongful death cases and personal injury cases and corporate liability cases.
• 29:05
  Speaker 5: And I think it's a real problem because you know,
• 29:07
  Speaker 5: often organizations will think they have enough insurance to cover things,
• 29:10
  Speaker 5: and then the forces I think yours are just less
• 29:14
  Speaker 5: deferential to large organizations. We're living in a time when
• 29:17
  Speaker 5: people are, you know, more likely to distrust institutions, and
• 29:21
  Speaker 5: people are wanting to send messages, and nothing sends a
• 29:24
  Speaker 5: message in this context like a very large verdict. So
• 29:27
  Speaker 5: it's definitely a problematic trend. And you know, I'm finding
• 29:31
  Speaker 5: clients in much more mundane cases are encountering it just
• 29:35
  Speaker 5: because it's you know, it's like you think, you know
• 29:38
  Speaker 5: that standard whatever insurance policy that you have is going
• 29:42
  Speaker 5: to be enough. But if you get an aggressive planeflawyer
• 29:44
  Speaker 5: who is able to tell a story very effectively and
• 29:47
  Speaker 5: really emotionally moved yours, you could be looking at a
• 29:50
  Speaker 5: lot more exposure.
• 29:51
  Speaker 2: Well, the Supreme Court has set guidance that punitive damages
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: shouldn't exceed a nine to one ratio to compare damages,
• 30:01
  Speaker 2: so we shall see what happens here. Thanks for joining me, Harry.
• 30:06
  Speaker 2: That's Harry Nelson of Leech Tishman Nelson Hardiman. He's the
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: author of the United States of Opioids. And that's it
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you
• 30:16
  Speaker 2: can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
• 30:31
  Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
• 30:35
  Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg