[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.