All:

KLGC has been an uncontrolled airport with intersecting runways for many, many decades.
My understanding is at least as far back as a WW2 training base.

Aircraft operation from Rwy 3 have good line of sight to the approach end of Rwy 31.

Due to the prevailing winds and runway length, power traffic typically uses Rwy 31.
So as not to congest the approach end of the "primary" runway, gliders typically operated from Rwy 21.
Aircraft departing from Rwy 21 do not have line of sight to the approach end of Rwy 31; hence, justification for a local rule to require an "agent" to be stationed at the intersection to advise "that no apparent traffic conflict will be involved".
See: http://www.lagrangeairport.com/Home/Rules_Regulations

As I previously pointed, non-glider related aircraft utilizing Rwy 21 have the same inability to see the approach end of Rwy 31, but the airport rule does not require an "agent" to advise in such a case.

Furthermore, since an aircraft departing Rwy 3 has good line of sight to the approach end of Rwy 31, the need for an agent to advise Rwy 3 glider ops is moot.

Regarding determination of right-of-way:

It is unclear to me from the court documents what phase of flight the Baron was at the intersection.

If the Baron was still on the ground from a touch and go, then it was still in the landing phase and thus had the right of way.
However, if the Baron was still on the ground by the intersection, that left precious little runway remaining to intiate a takeoff from that point.
The intersection of Rwy 31 & 3 is ~4000' from the approach end of Rwy 31.

If, as it seems from all accounts, the Baron was airborne at the intersection (~4000' from the approach end of Rwy 31), either from a go around, low approach, or touch and go, then the pilot probably wasn't intending to land within the remaining ~1500 of runway. The Baron was arguably no longer in the landing phase and, if a conflict with another airborne aircraft developed, standard right of way rules should have applied.

If auch an airborne conflict did occur at the intersection, standards dictate the less manuverable aircraft, being the tow plane with glider in tow, had the right of way.

IMO, there is too many specifics not known to be adamant about the Baron having the right of way.

My take, from the reports, is that the situation was not one of two airborne aircraft converging. Consequently, in flight right of way standards don't apply.

My take, from the reports, is that the cause of the crash is that the pilot of the Baron failed to maintain aircraft control. Other factors may be deemed contributory, but not causal. The only way the towplane could have caused the Baron to crash is if the towplane had impacted it. That did not happen.

The fact that a court of law can make an adamant ruling about the "cause" an aircraft accident, and assign liability therefom, without its discovery including an accurate determination about phase of flight, should concern every aviator, regardless of what type of aircraft they operate.

The fact that a local, political-appointed airport authority whose board members, who may or may not have flight training/experience, can independently institute rules specific to "their" public airport that conflict with FAA regulations but, nevertheless, will be used against you in a court of law should concern every aviator, regardless of what type of aircraft they operate.

Ray Cornay