OT: Concussion trauma suit v. Notre Dame
December 14th, 2016 at 9:26 AM ^
December 14th, 2016 at 9:34 AM ^
December 14th, 2016 at 9:35 AM ^
Why should a school be held accountable when CTE wasn't even know about at the time? A lawsuit implies negligence.
Now, make atheltes sign a form that shows they are aware of the potential dangers, and eliminates their right to sue in the future. Everyone knows the danger now, and they choose to play anyways. Even athletes that aren't playing for a scholarship or a potential NFL contract choose to play becuase the fun the sport provides them outweighs the potential future effects on their bodies.
December 14th, 2016 at 9:54 AM ^
Players don't know as much about the dangers as do the schools or the leagues. Nor should they be expected to. Once a player decides to play, the school still has a responsbility to take steps to protect their health. Signing a form doesn't relieve them of their responsibilities.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't know how enforceable a liability release form would be. It's not exactly freely signed if it's a requirement to accept a scholarship. For many, it's the only way they are even accepted into the school as a student. It's one thing if signing a form is required to play football. It's another if it's tied to attending school.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:05 AM ^
So they're making a decision that it is worth the risk for them to potentially get CTE later on in life so that they can get a scholarship, go to a school they might not be able to get into otherwise, and potentially get a NFL contract in the future.
If a school actively covered something up, then they are negligent. If Shane Morris had gotten reinjured when we put him back out there, that's a case for a lawsuit.
Also, how can you ever prove that the CTE symptoms you get are from college, not high school, or pee wee football. Or from playing any other sport growing up.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:28 AM ^
Of course, it can make sense for the players. I'm not criticizing them for their decisions.
Look at it from the schools' side. What is their responsibility? It doesn't go away because they force players to sign some form. They aren't giving the players much choice. Here, sign this form and follow your dreams, whether they be in football or using our education, or good luck to you somewhere else.
I wasn't commenting on whether a lawsuit would succeed. There are a lot of hurdles as you point out. However, this isn't going away as a legal issue in the future either. There's no simple solution to that if they keep sponsoring football.
It's clear that schools are rewarding players for endangering their health. They are, in fact, enticing them to do so and profiting from it. That gives them a strong responsibility to stay on top of the latest research and implement procedures designed to protect their players, does it not? That extends beyond gross negligence and misdeeds, in my opinion.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:42 AM ^
Agreed. They should do everything they can to protect athletes now. But schools shouldn't be held responsible for not knowing more than the medical community about concussions in the past.
Schools should give some portion of their profits to research. If not to protect the athletes, to protect the sport (and their profits that come with it) still being around in 10+ years. If money is the ultimate motivator, they can look at it as an investment instead of an ethical decision.
But in my opinion, if a school isn't negligent, they shouldn't be responsible for medical problems years down the road. Otherwise why stop at the brain? Why aren't track athletes suing because they have bad knees now? Baseball players because they have bad shoulders? Obviously the effects of CTE are much worse, but they are suing for football because there is money there, not because they are any more at fault than other sports.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:55 AM ^
in the past what is known now. They can, however, be expected to have acted appropriately based on what was known at the time. I would expect that will be the standard they would be held to in court.
Negligence is both a legal and lay term. The meanings aren't identical. In lay terms, I don't think it would be difficult to find incidences of schools and staff being negligent in the past. Linking them to particular injuries is harder.
Your arguments about bad knees and shoulders are silly. Obviously the money is there if they are suing the schools. Awards aren't going to paid directly by the particular sports program. Lawsuits about other injuries have been filed when there is reason to think they have been mishandled. It happens all the time, just doesn't get the same publicity.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:27 AM ^
First off, a lawsuit doesn't imply negligence. A lawsuit will lay out its particular claims. If the plaintiff is alleging negligence, it won't be implied. It'll be in the lawsuit.
Second, negligence in most states requires showing (among other elements) that a defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care. That duty probably existed before CTE was known, and just because "everybody knows the danger now" doesn't mean that negligence claims are going to go away.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:29 AM ^
Yes... Now we know more about concussions, which is why there are protocols in place like you described. In cases like Shane Morris's where it was not properly handled, I think there is a case for a lawsuit (if he had been reinjured).
A university can't be expected to know more about concussions and their effects than the medical community (in the 70s). If football is seen as such a danger and people continue to play it, then laws need to be put in place to ban it.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:12 AM ^
would definitely be tough and not sure how they really can sue the Univeristy. Unless, they have proof the school knew the kid had suffered concussions and didn't treat him properly and rushed him back to playing after the injuries. In that case I think they do have a legit case. It will be interesting to see what happens.
December 14th, 2016 at 11:34 AM ^
CTE/concussion problems have been known for a while now and often knowledge that is in the public domain is supposed to be known by all practicing physicians (and probably coaching staffs). You aren't necessarily shielded from liability because you haven't read some journal. That may be the case here.
I have great concerns that at some point, someone is going to win a suit with a large damage award that might not be covered by insurance. You can bet that an insurance company will attempt to make an argument that the training staff didn't follow the latest standard of care as a way to get out of writing the check. Regardless of whether the insurance company is successful or not, the cost of insurance will then go through the roof and it could be high enough that many institutions could no longer afford to continue playing football. Remember, only a couple of dozen programs run in the black.
December 14th, 2016 at 9:36 AM ^
December 14th, 2016 at 9:47 AM ^
December 14th, 2016 at 9:50 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 14th, 2016 at 10:15 AM ^
December 14th, 2016 at 11:02 AM ^
The whole idea of justice is turned on its head when people say....
Yeah, there is no real basis for liability because nobody knew better "but the high profits many schools are making justifies these suits"
Seriously? They didn't do anything wrong, but let's use this opportunity to re-distribute wealth.
Hey, force them to change the rules about redistributing wealth (through protests and withholding your fan money), but don't use a lawsuit BASED ON SOMETHING ELSE COMPLETELY as the basis for some vigilante justice.
Your attitude is one of the biggest problems with the legal system.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:24 AM ^
I am with Carolina Blue on this. Very well said.
I suspect all institutions have some form of protocol for concussions today which should protect them going forward assuming they are diligent about following protocol. Basically, I think it is similar to a malpractice suit involving a doctor. As long as a doctor follows standards of care as set forth by the medical community, they protect themselves from lawsuits no matter how bad an outcome might be for certain patients.
I do think there will be some interesting cases coming forth from the "rub some dirt on it" days when head trauma was not well understood and players were probably regularly told to suck it up and get back out there or never see the field again. I suspect a pretty solid case could be made for some guys whose eggs got scrambled a number of times while playing in college.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:48 AM ^
There are numerous frivolous lawsuits filed each year, but rest assured that the vast majority of them are dismissed early on and get nowhere. Sounds like this one barely made it over the hurdle to be filed. WInning a claim is a much much bigger hill.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:10 AM ^
I will also admit that my fandom is at odds with knowledge that the sport is super, hyper bad for brains.
I have a theory that in 30-50 years football will no longer by a 3 sport in America. I think it will go the same way boxing has.
I do not know in what order these events will happen (maybe concurently), but...
- As scientific evidence gathers the number of kids entering the talent pipeline will begin to decrease... starting with wealthy families.
- A growing movement of high schools will drop football as families become less interested and the science shows how bad this is for younger brains.
- There may be lawsuits at the high school level.
- These lawsuits will pick up... supported by gathering scientific evidence.
- Colleges - notably lawsuit averse institutions - will move to limit their expo
- sure to these suits. Programs that are already subsidized or barely profitable will close.
- At some point a class action will be brough against the NCAA or some other organization.
- As the pipeline of talent becomes poorer and more geographically isolated the number of folk watching the NFL will decrease (we are already seeing a decrease in viewership here).
At some point the whole system will dry up. Maybe this is all loony talk, but I do not think it is completly out of the realm of possibility.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:25 AM ^
Your first two points have already started. Youth football numbers are declining, though flag football is getting stronger. Whether that will sustain high school football in the long run is an open question.
Don't forget about the prohibitive cost of high schools to carry insurance for football. Many simply won't bother to sanction the sport due to cost.
Also, on June 12 this year, AIG announced it was no longer insuring the NFL or youth football players for head injuries. Other insurers copied them.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:25 AM ^
in many places in the country you are seeing youth football numbers decrease, and that is where it all begins. Less starting at a younger age, normal attrition of kids leaving the sport as they grow older that eventually in high school you will see programs shut down for lack of participation and maybe some schools merge teams.
Eventually this filters up to college and the NFL ranks. The CTE scare is real and people are wondering if it's really wise to put kids into the game.
I played the game all the way through college and had a couple cups of coffee in the NFL and if I had a son, not sure I would want him to play football. If he really wanted to I wouldn't say no, but I would've steered him in other directions. Lucky I never had to make that decision as I have a daughter and her love is softball.
December 14th, 2016 at 11:47 AM ^
I played the game all the way through college and had a couple cups of coffee in the NFLWhoa - you just kind of slipped that one in there. Did you play at Michigan?
December 14th, 2016 at 10:46 AM ^
First, boxing did not die off because of its violence. Its credibility got wrose each year because of the corruption involved. In a lot of ways, its void has been filled with the more violent UFC matches.
Second, football has been in the crosshairs as barbaric before and survived as the top US sport. In a country that appears to have issues with the world being too progressive and getting too soft too fast, a backlash has emerged and it could change the direction of popular sentiment. Or not. Anyway, this is also a possibility:
- Continued research shows that brain damage from hits to the head is also common in soccer, hockey, lacrosse, etc. and that the risk of concussion is not seen as a football only problem.
- Research shows that playing football actually increases your lifespan and that the health benefits are more common and consistant than the health risks.
- The NFL and others develop some technology for helmets that further minimizes the risk, but does not eliminate it. This makes people feel better.
- Rules may also be changed to help a bit with the collisions making it closer to the risks associated with other sports.
- Certain groups of Americans hold up football as something unique and great about "American grit" or whatever way they spin it. It stays popular similar to the way Americans defend the lack of paid vacation laws for new mothers, gun rights, etc. It makes us tough.
- Meanwhile, we see an influx of people from developing countries adopt football as more of an international sport. This widens the pool of people who accept what is beginning to look like not that big of a risk compared to the benefits
This may be loony too. But, predicting the future is hard business. I don't think you can write off football so quickly because suburban moms are swayed by the headlines of studies posted on facebook. I think this wll play out over years and that the popularity of football and its uniqueness as an American sport may let it weather any such storm. But, I don't know.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:53 AM ^
December 14th, 2016 at 11:01 AM ^
Personally, I believe the benefits far outweigh the risks. The teamwork, the hard work, the self-betterment, etc.
The idea of fun physical fitness alone (in the face of hordes of sedentary kids) is a great benefit. Heart disease and weight related problems are a much much bigger risk to our sons today. But, hey, faulty risk assesment is common. I know people afraid of sharks. Others afraid to fly. Both those people text and drive though....
Football hits look bad on TV, that image clearly weighs into people's thinking.....
December 14th, 2016 at 1:04 PM ^
December 14th, 2016 at 11:42 AM ^
I don't think football is going anywhere in terms of popularity. The issue with boxing wasn't necessarily the violence but all the shadiness associated with it, as well as the fact that fights became broadcast on pay-per-view.
More likely, football will change its rules and equipment to become somewhat safer.
December 14th, 2016 at 10:46 AM ^
December 14th, 2016 at 10:47 AM ^
December 14th, 2016 at 11:54 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 14th, 2016 at 2:35 PM ^
With all the money in college football, assuming that the sport's popularity continues, perhaps the NCAA should consider creating a mandatory, self-funded insurance pool with generous benefits for college players. It might be best for the sport and for the players and schools.
One problem with getting mere waivers from players is first, that many sign LOIs when they're still minors. A waiver signed by a parent or guardian might be subject to future challenge, and in some states might even require court approval, such as is required when minors sign entertainment contracts in California.
Second, many who have reached the age of majority will sign what they need to sign in order to play without fully comprehending the risks, and to me this is as much an ethical problem for the schools as it is a legal problem down the road.
However, changes in the rules could be made to protect players. One example would be the hits that quarterbacks take in the backfield after the ball is released; right now the excuse that's given is that it's difficult to stop the defensive charge, but we've all seen QBs take "punishment" hits designed to wear them down during a game, well after it's clear that the ball is out of their hands. Another would be the hits receivers take after an incomplete pass. There are many other examples of unnecessary hits.
Then there is the whole matter of the kind of chop or cut block that resulted in the injury to our O Lineman Grant Newsome. I fail to see how that kind of a thing is necessary or a legal play in college football.
December 14th, 2016 at 5:05 PM ^