Ex players legal case

[ATLANTISMAN]

Has anyone heard anything more about this, also the rumour that the RFL have joined up with the RFU to defend this (Settlement etc) If so my personal opinion is that could be a disaster for us as the claims v the RFU due to the thuggish nature of the game rucks mauls stamping etc will be massive.

 

P 

Edited January 20, 2023 by ATLANTISMAN

[Whippet13]

I don't think it can be a joint legal defence in the court as they are 2 totally separate claims. What would make sense is for the RFL and RFU to share data and medical/legal expertise between themselves to provide a better defence in each individual case. Also, well done on not using capitals throughout your thread title, keep it up! 

[Wolford6]

Every one of those players had the option to wear a headguard. That must weaken their case.

[Tonka]

The only way the RFL and RFU would be jointly involved in a proceeding would be if a player (or players) who had played both codes sued both bodies as jointly liable.  Which isn’t impossible.

Not wearing a head guard wouldn’t weaken the case much, not least because they don’t think head guards make much difference with concussion injuries or any to whiplash.

[philipw]

36 minutes ago, Wolford6 said:

Every one of those players had the option to wear a headguard. That must weaken their case.

Not in the slightest…..there is no evidence to suggest wearing one reduces the frequency or extent of concussion. 

[Midlands hobo]

21 minutes ago, philipw said:

Not in the slightest…..there is no evidence to suggest wearing one reduces the frequency or extent of concussion. 

Didn't amateur boxing remove head protection because it didn't work?

[philipw]

10 hours ago, Midlands hobo said:

Didn't amateur boxing remove head protection because it didn't work?

I’m not sure, I haven’t watched it for a long time 

[Wolford6]

14 hours ago, Midlands hobo said:

Didn't amateur boxing remove head protection because it didn't work?

I have a friend who was a really good amateur boxer. He said that the trouble ewith the boxing helmets was that they could reduce your lateral vision.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Wolford6

[Big Picture]

18 hours ago, philipw said:

Not in the slightest…..there is no evidence to suggest wearing one reduces the frequency or extent of concussion. 

That's because there's no such thing as a head guard or helmet capable of preventing concussions, and never will be either.  A concussion occurs when the brain collides with the inside of a player's skull, and no headgear will ever be capable of protecting against that.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Big Picture

[Dunbar]

If there are any legally trained people on these boards, can I ask a question.

Is there a requirement from the claimant's legal teams to prove that the RFL knew of the long term health risks to the players and did not act on it (I guess the tobacco companies is the closest analogy) or is the claim possible due to the obligation of the governing body to be vigilant to these things and so they should have known even if they didn't; they in fact had a duty of care to understand these things?

I would imagine the latter is much more provable than the former.

If it is the latter though, surely there is a sensible limit to what a duty of care can entail and whether understanding relatively complex long term health issues unknown at the time falls into this. 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Dunbar

[Griff]

32 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

If it is the latter though, surely there is a sensible limit to what a duty of care can entail and whether understanding relatively complex long term health issues unknown at the time falls into this. 

Deciding where the "sensible limit" might be is the problem.

You might come to a completely different definition to the judge.  It's just an opinion.

[Dunbar]

13 minutes ago, Griff said:

Deciding where the "sensible limit" might be is the problem.

You might come to a completely different definition to the judge.  It's just an opinion.

That's my point.  I would have thought the claimant's would have to prove some degree of negligence and these sliding scales of opinion would make that more difficult as the 'defence' would try to make things as grey as possible.

[Griff]

43 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

That's my point.  I would have thought the claimant's would have to prove some degree of negligence and these sliding scales of opinion would make that more difficult as the 'defence' would try to make things as grey as possible.

Still the judge's view that matters.   This won't be a criminal case where they have to prove "beyond reasonable doubt".  It'll be a civil case based on "balance of probabilities".

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

If there are any legally trained people on these boards, can I ask a question.

Is there a requirement from the claimant's legal teams to prove that the RFL knew of the long term health risks to the players and did not act on it (I guess the tobacco companies is the closest analogy) or is the claim possible due to the obligation of the governing body to be vigilant to these things and so they should have known even if they didn't; they in fact had a duty of care to understand these things?

I would imagine the latter is much more provable than the former.

If it is the latter though, surely there is a sensible limit to what a duty of care can entail and whether understanding relatively complex long term health issues unknown at the time falls into this. 

My understanding is the claims are not against the game in general but against the sports failure to clamp down on high tackles. It’s why boxing doesn’t seem to have any problem with the old you new what you were getting into argument. Nowhere in RLs rules does it state you will be hit in the head so have the RFL done enough to prevent that happening. I’d also imagine the next line will be suing clubs for forcing players to play on with concussion followed by suing fellow pros for bad tackles from 20 years ago. It is a route that will undoubtedly see players having to sign waivers on turning pro. 

[Griff]

14 hours ago, bobbruce said:

My understanding is the claims are not against the game in general but against the sports failure to clamp down on high tackles.

Is there a difference ?   If claims are made, they'll be against the governing bodies.

[Oxford]

37 minutes ago, Griff said:

Is there a difference ?   If claims are made, they'll be against the governing bodies.

Of course it will. The level of outcome and settlement could/will be a disaster.