Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.

The guy working the saw mill makes $8 an hour. Losing his hand effectively kills his ability to survive. Not as much for football players. Sort of subjective I know but I don't think a lot of people can empathize on this. Especially when contrasted to the risks that a lot of football players probably take by ingesting things they shouldn't. I guarantee a non-insignificant percentage of the 4500 used a PED at some point. That's called hypocrisy.

Another distinction would be that, in the main, these guys are suing for workplace injuries after they have left the workplace.

In the civil setting, the burden is on the NFL/Owners to prove assumption of the risk and, if so, they aren't at legally at fault. I believe this means that, in order to prevail, the owners have to prove (1) the players knew or should have known that concussion injuries could occur and (2) the players played despite their knowledge of the injury risk.

As I read the Complaint overthemountain quoted, the players are saying "we didn't know the extent of the risk. Further, at least as late as 1994, the NFL did know but failed to inform us about how dangerous it would likely be to our long term health.

I think the players are emphasising the long term or late-in-life consequences and essentially saying "Sure, we wore helmets and ran into each other so - yeah - we knew we could get hurt NOW and not play anymore. We agree; we assumed that risk. BUT, we didn't know that we would be hurt LATER. We never intended to assume that risk. Further, the NFL's misinformation prevented us from making an informed choice on whether or not to assume it."

Portis was on the radio yesterday and discussed the lawsuit. He said he didnt know the specific claims/arguments of the suit but he did say the following:

1) he didnt know what a concussion was (dont really buy that personally)

2) he didnt know what the diagnosis of a concussion was (I buy that to a degree)

3) when he had a head hit/injury, he was told to shake the cobwebs off and go back out there (I buy this.)

I could def see the medical staff down playing concussions and turning a blind eye to diagnosing them. Especially before a few years ago.

Even last year after all the new rules on mandatory concussion testing, you still saw mike vick laying on the field, fletcher calling for medical staff, then medical staff not administering the mandatory concussion test and saying he had to get grass out of his helmet and sent him back out there.

joe - interesting case that might be similar to the nfl concussion suit. I am sure you have read it before. I dont know the name offhand (______ v. CSK et al) but it was out of baltimore where a railroad worker sued for damages for injuries and disabilities related to walking on train tracks over many years. I think the employer argued, in part, assumption of risk. COA found in favor of the employee.

NC's point is that salaries are tied directly to the amount of money that the sport brings in. He used other sports as examples. Golf being the best one. Since people watch it, they can bid out the rights to networks to air it for a lot of money. It doesnt have to have violence for people to like it. The "Brutal violence of Golf" is absolutely nothing, yet people still watch it.

Yeah, I get that point. I think you misunderstood mine.

Your right about golf. I just disagree that people would watch football if not for the hitting. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is my opinion.

Another distinction would be that, in the main, these guys are suing for workplace injuries after they have left the workplace.

In the civil setting, the burden is on the NFL/Owners to prove assumption of the risk and, if so, they aren't at legally at fault. I believe this means that, in order to prevail, the owners have to prove (1) the players knew or should have known that concussion injuries could occur and (2) the players played despite their knowledge of the injury risk.

As I read the Complaint overthemountain quoted, the players are saying "we didn't know the extent of the risk. Further, at least as late as 1994, the NFL did know but failed to inform us about how dangerous it would likely be to our long term health.

I think the players are emphasising the long term or late-in-life consequences and essentially saying "Sure, we wore helmets and ran into each other so - yeah - we knew we could get hurt NOW and not play anymore. We agree; we assumed that risk. BUT, we didn't know that we would be hurt LATER. We never intended to assume that risk. Further, the NFL's misinformation prevented us from making an informed choice on whether or not to assume it."

How does the NFL (and no other football league ever in operation) bear responsibility? How could any one player attribute his issues to hits only sustained in the NFL? Seems incredibly dubious to me.

Here's what I don't get. These guys weren't hired off the streets. They played football for YEARS before they were in the NFL. How does the NFL bear ALL the responsibility? Colleges? High schools? Pop Warner?

Well, if RedskinRat, saden1, Smootsmack and Matty all beat the crap out of me, I can sue anyone of them for the entire amount of harm done to me (I'd pick saden1 b/c he studied law at a Holiday Inn). It is then up to saden1 to (1) join, by third party complaint, all the others; or (2) after I beat him in court, sue Matty, SS and RR for contribution to the judgment against him.

It is a defense to say "I am not the person that hurt you." It is not a defense to say "I am not the only person that hurt you." The purpose is to provide full recovery to a wrongly injured party. Thus, when a group of people wrongly harm you, the duty of specifically proving how much damage each person caused lies with those who caused the injuries - not with the person who suffered them.

Well, if RedskinRat, saden1, Smootsmack and Matty all beat the crap out of me, I can sue anyone of them for the entire amount of harm done to me (I'd pick saden1 b/c he studied law at a Holiday Inn). It is then up to saden1 to (1) join, by third party complaint, all the others; or (2) after I beat him in court, sue Matty, SS and RR for contribution to the judgment against him.

It is a defense to say "I am not the person that hurt you." It is not a defense to say "I am not the only person that hurt you." The purpose is to provide full recovery to a wrongly injured party. Thus, when a group of people wrongly harm you, the duty of specifically proving how much damage each person caused lies with those who caused the injuries - not with the person who suffered them.

You should have also named me in that beating because I probably have better insurance.LOL

Sheriff Gonna SueYa.

lol...

In all seriousness, the NFL better be pooling alot of money together to settle these claims and claims in the future. Players will win this one if it goes to court imo.

Portis was on the radio yesterday and discussed the lawsuit. He said he didnt know the specific claims/arguments of the suit but he did say the following:

1) he didnt know what a concussion was (dont really buy that personally)

2) he didnt know what the diagnosis of a concussion was (I buy that to a degree)

3) when he had a head hit/injury, he was told to shake the cobwebs off and go back out there (I buy this.)

I could def see the medical staff down playing concussions and turning a blind eye to diagnosing them. Especially before a few years ago.

Even last year after all the new rules on mandatory concussion testing, you still saw mike vick laying on the field, fletcher calling for medical staff, then medical staff not administering the mandatory concussion test and saying he had to get grass out of his helmet and sent him back out there.

joe - interesting case that might be similar to the nfl concussion suit. I am sure you have read it before. I dont know the name offhand (______ v. CSK et al) but it was out of baltimore where a railroad worker sued for damages for injuries and disabilities related to walking on train tracks over many years. I think the employer argued, in part, assumption of risk. COA found in favor of the employee.

CSX Transp., Inc. v. Pitts, 203 Md. App. 343 (2013). I had not read it and did just a cursory review of the opinion. I didn't see any discussion on assumption of the risk - questions as to Fed preemption, notice and damage issues. Maybe I missed it.

lol...

In all seriousness, the NFL better be pooling alot of money together to settle these claims and claims in the future. Players will win this one if it goes to court imo.

Not so sure. Even if it survives a motion to dismiss based on assumption of the risk, players still have to prove NFL knew or should have known these injuries likely to occur. Again, as someone said, they wore helmets and pads - of course injuries were likely, it was forseeable that the injuries could manifest themselves after they finished playing, and it forseeable that the exact nature of the future injury wouldn't be known until it actually manifested itself.

You knew the game was violent, you knew former players suffered from a variety of injuries and that some of these injuries were different from anything they suffered while playing. Further, no one knew about the significance or extent of damage done by concussions until very recently ... until then it was all conjecture.

CSX Transp., Inc. v. Pitts, 203 Md. App. 343 (2013). I had not read it and did just a cursory review of the opinion. I didn't see any discussion on assumption of the risk - questions as to Fed preemption, notice and damage issues. Maybe I missed it.

its not a 2013 case, its from the 70s or 80s .. havent read it in 5 plus years. not a big deal.

i think a 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim motion to dismiss may require an amended complaint bc the complaint doesnt appear to state any specific dates of injury/negligence to any particular/specific party. im dealing with one of those right now.

also, maybe the specific employees of the NFL, nfl teams may need to be named as parties for respondeat superior pleading purposes but i am not sure if fed rules allow for a lessening of the pleadings in class action cases. im guessing they do.