More liable? How about simply liable?
In the eyes of a jury looking at a $50 million civil lawsuit, they want to see that the school at least tried. Personally, I don't think it's up to the school to test -- I think that's the parent's job. But past lawsuits have proven me wrong.
"2. If a player is recklessly high, the coach has no business letting him play. There's where the school's liability would be."
Ever watch football? Special teams? On the kickoff? Those guys are crazy! Or they're all "recklessly high".
Which is it, KenH? Can you tell the difference between aggressive football and reckless behavior?
If a "recklessly high" player causes an injury, the school is liable, regardless of whether a drug screening program was in place. Therefore, it makes sense to ask how it makes the school more liable not to have one.
In the eyes of a jury looking at a $50 million civil lawsuit, they want to see that the school at least tried. Personally, I don't think it's up to the school to test -- I think that's the parent's job. But past lawsuits have proven me wrong.
There have been lawsuits where the failure of a school to institute a drug screening policy was a factor in determining liability for an injury? I've not heard that before. (other than your post)
Can you tell the difference between aggressive football and reckless behavior?
You said "recklessy high on drugs", which should be observable in the lockerroom, for example. It would also be a tip off if the player continues to jump up and down, and pump his fist, even during the National Anthem.