Was the Petitioner's constitutional right to jury trial denied or violated?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented to this court are as follows: 1. Was the Petitioner’s constitutional right to jury trial by demand denied and/or violated by the lower court when it did not conduct a jury trial as demanded nor obtain a jury trial waiver from the Petitioner and Respondents? 2. Was the Petitioner’s constitutional right to jury trial based on status of “special relationship” denied and/or violated? . 3. Was the Petitioner's constitutional right to jury trial denied and/or violated when the lower court ruled the following and dismissed the Petitioner’s complaint without a jury trial: : a. “University Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect Plaintiff against unreasonable risk of harm. This included a duty to provide duly licensed athletic trainers for the purpose of rendering treatment to its student athletes participating in athletic ; . ; events.”?; ; : : : b. “...the Court finds University Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff . by virtue of his status as a student-athlete who was recruited by Penn State University and participated in intercollegiate athletic events on behalf of Penn State University...”?; c. “Plaintiff has failed to aver facts evidencing a breach of the duty owed by University Defendants...”?; : f . ii. : d. “Here, University Defendants exercised reasonable care in ensuring Plaintiff received proper medical treatment...”?; . e. “...University Defendants did not fail to have qualified medical personnel available, deny Plaintiff medical care or interfere with his treatment...”?; . f. “There is no special relationship in this case which would impose a auity greater than reasonable care...”?; ~ g. “University Defendants did not breach their duty to ensure qualified medical personnel were available to render medical assistance and Plaintiff failed to aver facts showing University Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care.”?; and h. “...Plaintiff's pleadings fail to establish a breach of the duty University Defendants owed to Plaintiff, and, therefore, Plaintiffs , negligence claim against University Defendants is insufficient as a "matter of law.” iit, |