Quote:
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."