Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

The NFL might not be at total fault, but I do think they bear some responsibility, as well as the players, teams, and team doctors.

It's funny to me that the majority sides with the multi-billion dollar industry of the NFL. And are quick to judge the players saying they are making a money grab.

This is a very complex issue and the side you tend to hear the most from is the more powerful side, the NFL. When you read about what a lot of these former players are going through its actually pretty sad. I mean how soon do we forget about all of the suicides that have happened over the past few years. Maybe it's just me but I would wait a second before I said they all are just lazy bums that can't get a job after the NFL.

Well said.

The NFL's argument is essentially the same argument made by employers prior to worker's compensation laws: Hey, you took a job at a sawmill - you worked with saws, you had to know you were at risk of cutting off your hand.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well said.

The NFL's argument is essentially the same argument made by employers prior to worker's compensation laws: Hey, you took a job at a sawmill - you worked with saws, you had to know you were at risk of cutting off your hand.

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.

[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."

[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.

[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?

[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

[Giantone]

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.

Ok JR question , don't some states I think Florida is one that takes into account the fact of the person...ie ...victim help contribute to his injuries/ condition himself by being a willing and "paid" participant ?


Also you say "wrongly" ,how is this person wrong if they openly volunteered and where willing to inflict the same damage on others as was done to himself?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Ok JR question , don't some states I think Florida is one that takes into account the fact of the person...ie ...victim help contribute to his injuries/ condition himself by being a willing and "paid" participant?

All states have that ... it's called assumption of the risk. See my earlier posts on the issue.

Originally Posted by Giantone

Also you say "wrongly" ,how is this person wrong if they openly volunteered and where willing to inflict the same damage on others as was done to himself?

It is "wrong" if they didn't assume the risk of injury that they suffered [or thought they were causing]. i.e. long term brain injury which only manifested itself several years after retiring. See my earlier posts.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

All states have that ... it's called assumption of the risk. See my earlier posts on the issue.



It is "wrong" if they didn't assume the risk of injury that they suffered [or thought they were causing]. i.e. long term brain injury which only manifested itself several years after retiring. See my earlier posts.

Thanks

[Green Monk Machine]

Originally Posted by Giantone

BS ,you have blamed everyone but the players ,the players knew what they were doing end of story .Do I think the NFL should do more to help retirees....yes but are they at fault for this ...NO . Goodell sure as hell isn't at fault.

Players WERE mentioned as referenced to the NFPLA that represents their interests and I support the players, but thanks for trying to have a position.

[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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, yes and no.

They care about keeping their star players healthy, which in turn generates revenue.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Well, yes and no.

They care about keeping their star players healthy, which in turn generates revenue.

I always think of a player, front office/ownership relationship like a casual relationship. They use each other until one party can no longer help the other, then the relationship terminates.

[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.