Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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."

[over the mountain]

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.

[GoSkins!]

Originally Posted by Skinzman

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.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

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.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

[MTK]

So basically this all boils down to did the NFL hold back info regarding head injuries from the players, correct?

Doesn't seem like too crazy of an idea to me.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

I dont know if the league is gonna want everything to come out on public record about what they didnt do in a trial. Im sure they are weighing the possible damage and how much to settle. What the initial settlement figures guess? Are we in hundred millions range or are we talking the dreaded billions figures?

[Skinzman]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

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.

If they try to turn it into flag football, then I agree. But they have been adding rules for a while now to lessen the hits. Back in the 60's and/or 70's, you could club an OL across his head. They now have all the QB protection and defenseless receiver rules. They just added this year the RB's putting their head down rule 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage. And the NFL is still on a steady rise for popularity.

Either way, salaries are tied to one thing only. The Income of the NFL. It doesnt really matter what drives that income, only that it is there.

[firstdown]

I'm not very smart but even I have known for some time concussions are not a good thing and taking blows to the head can cause concussions.

[NC_Skins]

As mlmdub said, both parties are at fault in this blame game. Not so much the older players because player safety and concussions weren't a big thing back then, and neither was the information as available as it is now. The players in the 2000's really don't have much of a leg to stand on. They've known now for a while about the future side effects of repeated concussions and they've continued playing. Even Portis would STILL be playing if any team were interested in him.


All this said, the players want money, they had their opportunity this past CBA to get that money. If they weren't so idiotic and impatient, they could have scored. As it is, you had too many that were living a high life style and caved into the peanuts thrown their way. There is no way the players couldn't demand a 80/20 split of the revenue. They ARE the talent, not the owners. If they walk away, it's the owners that are left with the massive debt and franchises, who's value would plummet. A 9 billion a year revenue machine and the prime employees who make it as great as it is settles for pennies on the dollar.

As for Matty's comment about the NFL withholding information about concussions. Without a doubt I believe they did. It's all about the product, and the product brings in the money. These owners could give two shits about the players health. It's their pockets they care about.