Can somebody post a quick summary of what she says happened to her? Because from what I've heard, it sounds like he was basically a jerk. So I'm wondering if anybody can sum up without me needing to read the entire complaint.
I'm also hoping maybe somebody with a legal background can clear up if what he did opens him to a civil suit like this, or if being a jerk is... I dunno the term, but not open to litigation?
Or could something in their contract make him liable? I assume if somebody is just a jerk constantly to their friend, their friend can just walk away from that relationship anytime, so it seems like they can't sue for that. But if they have a legal contract, maybe that makes it harder for her to walk away, so the abusive relationship becomes a potential liability for him? But I have no idea, looking for somebody with knowledge in the area to comment on it. Maybe the brojos can get an article written.[/quote]
Reposting my thoughts (not yet an expert but hoping to be soon): Okay, Torts class was a year ago at this point but I do have a strong memory of learning about Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims (IIED). Many jurisdictions use what is called the "eggshell" or "thin skull" rule (first articulated in the very famous Vosburg v. Putney case for physical damages and then applied to emotional damages as would be the case here). Essentially the defendant is liable for damages which are "reasonable" even if not necessarily foreseeable and even if that future plaintiff had an prior condition which was not known to the defendant. For instance, if Cain had a thin skull and Salazar slapped her head and her skull broke she could sue and recover for damages for head damage. This is relevant because although you or I would not begin self-harming for example due to this training environment that Salazar created, perhaps Cain can argue that she was suffering from mental health concerns so this behavior caused her injuries that were not likely foreseeable by Salazar but nonetheless are attributable to him (essentially Cain is a "thin skull" plaintiff.
However, it is I believe slightly more relevant to consider Cain's response to the Salazar-created training environment. As articulated above, the standard is that the plaintiff must suffer measurable damages that are caused by the defendant but the damages suffered must be objectively reasonable. This can be thought of on a continuum (plaintiff must suffer some kind of harm because of Salazar telling her to lose weight but that harm cannot be absolutely a crazy overreaction). Cain may run into some difficulty here because if her lawyers cannot convince the jury (I'm doubting this case ever makes it before a jury) that Salazar's toxic environment was enough to cause a person to self-harm and suffer from depression/ PTSD/ anxiety (ie that this is not an overreaction) then this would be a bar to damages. Note that, as discussed, if Cain was suffering from one or more of these conditions she could argue that they were exacerbated by Salazar (thin skull, harm claimed would be reasonable bc reasonable that for instance someone with a history of say an eating disorder would be triggered by weight control but less reasonable for someone with no history of mental health issues to begin acting in this way).
Another wrinkle: A LOT of young female athletes (including many professional ones think Allie O recently for instance and all the noise about Jordan after Boston) have eating disorders so Nike/ Salazar would argue "it's not us that caused the harm that were suffered, this girl would have developed one training at a high level anyway. This would be attacking the causation that is required to sustain a claim for damages (illustrated in famous Ryland RR case in which someone did something which led to about four other things that eventually caused the plaintiff to be injured by the train... is the connection between the original defendant and the harm suffered too tenuous).
The filed complaint specifically mentions the special duty owed by Salazar to Cain. That probably will stick because of the contractual duty between them as well as the fact that Cain was a minor and clearly an authority figure in her life. Thus, it will likely be easier for a jury to find that Salazar's behavior harmed Cain rises to the level that warrants a finding for her.
I will note that historically plaintiffs could only sue if the damages were physical. That changed as the court allowed women to sue for IIED for distress suffered by witnessing harm to their children and then was extended to all plaintiffs who suffered themselves or witnessing harm to a close relative (you cannot sue a driver for hitting the car next to you causing you distress unless the person driving was your mother for instance, it cannot be another random motorist you don't know even if it does in fact cause you measurable and reasonable distress). I say this to say that courts are still FAR less likely to award damages (especially large sums) for emotional damage. That damage has to manifest itself in articulable ways (Cain is trying to do that when she lists all the many physical injuries she suffered during her time @ the NOP- much easier to prove those than "anxiety." She again runs into the causation problem though because I myself for instance am self-coached and get injured all the time (defendant will argue she would have gotten injured running anyway and I didn't push her to get injured anymore than my other athletes were pushed who did not suffer these injuries).
Lastly, I hated Contracts with a passion but without articulating as lengthy of an analysis, I think the fraud/ misrepresentation claim is just them shooting in the dark and hoping to hit something... the claim is legally very weak (compared to the IIED claim which I think, though not without faults, is arguable). As someone entering into the contract you have a STRONG duty to do your own research about the other party (Rojo mentions that there were rumors about Salazar on LetsRun for instance, this was public, readily-accessible info that Cain had the burden to uncover). The information was not deliberately concealed from Cain either, so she cannot argue that. Importantly, this material must be MATERIAL to the contract. The filed complaint says it was "material" but it would be very difficult for them to actually win on this point because for instance, Salazar's sexual abuse which I was not aware of (details?) seemed to have no impact on Cain- she is not arguing that she was sexually abused by Salazar. I cannot remember what else the complaint alleges constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation, however.