forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

And yet the owners erected the fence . . . 

The moral of the story is that it is better to make a symbolic gesture than to do nothing at all:

"Well, we instituted a rule forbidding leading with the helmet.  Any other cranial contact is incidental to the game, and players have to assume some risk.  Heck, even ping pong players can throw out their elbow."

Except that as Emmitt Smith and now Matt Forte have pointed out, the NFL would be increasing the risk of injury through implementation of the rule.  A runner who runs standing straight up (the only way to not lead with the head) is exposing his ribs, inner organs and soft tissue to an oncoming freight train in the form of a LB  or safety. 

It's like erecting the fence at the race track but designing them in a way that the fence falls on the fans when contacted.  They aren't preventing injury, they're just changing the damaged body part.

From what I read, the advocates of the rule are arguing that it won't change how runners run, that it will only cover the really flagrant stuff, and the people will figure out what they are trying to do.  I am sick in bed and don't feel up to looking it all up again.

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Max wrote:

One possible reason could be liability issues.  For example you could say the same things about fans who attend sporitng events, they went by choice . . . even paid money.  If a car crashes on the race track, a wheel comes off, and kills a young girl in the stands, whay of it?  But the race track owners understand they might be liable, so they install lots of safety precautions to prevent that.

i dont see a relation between fans wanting to safely watch a sportimg event and a player getting paid 100 of thousands of dollars.
 

the relationship is liability.  workers can sue their employer if the workplace is unsafe.  i don't know if athlete's have ever tried suing their organizing body for failing to institute rule changes that could protect the players, but i suspect they could try.

No they can't.  An employee can complain to OSHA or a comparable state agency, but cannot individually sue.  An employee can sue if they are fired in retaliation for making such a complaint.  If an employee is injured at work, his/her remedy is to file a workers' compensation claim.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

APIAD wrote:

i dont see a relation between fans wanting to safely watch a sportimg event and a player getting paid 100 of thousands of dollars.
 

the relationship is liability.  workers can sue their employer if the workplace is unsafe.  i don't know if athlete's have ever tried suing their organizing body for failing to institute rule changes that could protect the players, but i suspect they could try.

No they can't.  An employee can complain to OSHA or a comparable state agency, but cannot individually sue.  An employee can sue if they are fired in retaliation for making such a complaint.  If an employee is injured at work, his/her remedy is to file a workers' compensation claim.

What I meant to say is that if they are inuured on the job, they can sue, claiming the workplace was unsafe.

For example, say I work at Jiffy Lube, and the owner does not properly maintain the car jack, and a car falls on me and leaves me paralyzed.  I think I could sue

If that is wrong, I stand corrected.  

OK. I stand corrected.  

I would think that if, for example, the NFL refused to make rules changes that could signifantly improve player health and safety at little or no cost to the game, and if later many former players were suffering health problems as a result, that there would be a liability issue for the NFL.

Last edited by Max (3/22/2013 10:07 am)

APIAD wrote:

Are ex players not seeking lawsuits over the long term effects playing in the nfl had on their health?

They are, but the legal theory isn't the injuries themselves.  The allegations are that the NFL knew of the risks of concussions, but provided false information to the players and then either misdiagnosed or mishandled the injuries once suffered.  Also, there may be an argument that the NFL wasn't the players' employer.  A player is an employee of his individual team.  Whether or not the NFL could somehow be considered a joint employer, I don't know.

Those lawsuits are much more analogous to the lawsuits that were filed against the tobacco companies a few years back alleging that the tobacco companies knew the dangers of smoking, but withheld the information from the public.

Interestingly enough, even NFL players are subject to workers compensation laws.  When I went through the NFLPA agent certification process, one of the things that was taught was that if you ever had a client get injured, make sure you file a workers compensation claim.

Last edited by forsberg_us (3/22/2013 10:28 am)

forsberg_us wrote:

APIAD wrote:

Are ex players not seeking lawsuits over the long term effects playing in the nfl had on their health?

They are, but the legal theory isn't the injuries themselves.  The allegations are that the NFL knew of the risks of concussions, but provided false information to the players and then either misdiagnosed or mishandled the injuries once suffered.  Also, there may be an argument that the NFL wasn't the players' employer.  A player is an employee of his individual team.  Whether or not the NFL could somehow be considered a joint employer, I don't know.

Those lawsuits are much more analogous to the lawsuits that were filed against the tobacco companies a few years back alleging that the tobacco companies knew the dangers of smoking, but withheld the information from the public.

Interestingly enough, even NFL players are subject to workers compensation laws.  When I went through the NFLPA agent certification process, one of the things that was taught was that if you ever had a client get injured, make sure you file a workers compensation claim.

I assume they wooukd knly get work comp if they lost employment because i am sure player under contract gets paid even if they are hurt.  Can a free agent player file for unemployment?  Maybe that is what is holding loshe up.  

I findit hard to believe the ex players could win anything.  It just doesnt make sense.  It is a contact sport and i think it would be impossible to prove that the medical staff faild 10 to 15 years later.
 

Max wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

OK. I stand corrected.  

I would think that if, for example, the NFL refused to make rules changes that could signifantly improve player health and safety at little or no cost to the game, and if later many former players were suffering health problems as a result, that there would be a liability issue for the NFL.

If the NFL wasn't deceitful about the risk of injury and/or the consequences of the injury, I disagree.  The law still recognizes assumption of risk as a valid defense.

 

OK.  That sounds like a reasonable way to go about it.

But I am remembering something about liability issues in small plane design, where a manufacturer was liable if possible saefty upgrades were not included.  It was a long time ago and a hazy memory.

 
Product liability is a completely different area of the law because consumers get a lot of protections.

Probably the most famous cases were the exploding Ford Pintos.  During the litigation process, the plaintiffs were able to prove that Ford knew they needed to add some sort of valve that would prevent the gas tanks from exploding and knew the cost of adding the valve to all of the cars, but decided not to do it because they believed the cost of paying a few wrongful death suits would be less than the cost of adding the valves.

That didn't go well for Ford.  It went very well for the plaintiffs' attorneys.

Max wrote:

I have heard similar things about dangers at Disney theme parks and McDonalds playlands.

It's a shame that protecting workers doesn't get as much concern as protecting consumers.  

I probably said that poorly.  The standards are different, but one isn't necessarily better than the other.

In some ways, the employee is better protected.  Because their injuries are covered by workers' compensation insurance, they will always get compensated.  In that sense they are in better shape than a consumer who may have a cause of action against a defendant that can declare bankruptcy and avoid a judgment.

In other ways, the consumer can come out better than an employee because they can recover things like punitive damages or treble damages (depending on the basis of the action) that aren't available in the workers' comp forum.

With respect to an employee's injury, proof of fault is unnecessary.  If my job involves lifting and my employer gives me all the training available on proper lifting techniques and gives me the best back brace equipment available, I still receive compensation if I hurt my back, even if I disregard the training/equipment.  On the other hand, the consumer has to prove a standard of fault (negligence, carelessness, etc...) depending on the type of claim.

Like I said, they're just different.

forsberg_us wrote:

Like I said, they're just different.

Ideologically I don't like the idea that employers can't face punitive damages for negligence in workplace safety.

If McD's coffee is too hot, and a customer buys it, spills it, and burns her vagina, she is awarded $3 million.  As a worker, if I make it, spill it, and burn my vagina, I get my medical bills paid.  

All I want is to have the RIGHT to sue if I were to burn my vagina as a McD employee.  Whether or not I have a vagina is beside the point.  

I shall fight the oppressors for my RIGHT to sue if I burn my vagina, brother.