Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Walter Olson is a guy who has been toiling in the field of tort reform for many years. Tort reform is one of those areas where conservatives never really got traction. In fact my impression would be that the right has largely given up on it as a cause.
Now Olson is quoted by columnist Stephen Chapman as saying:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olson
"If we were to apply the same legal principles to football as we do to other industries, it would have to become extremely different, if not go out of business."
It seems far-fetched given the popularity of football, but then having followed the tobacco wars fairly closely since the early 1990's, back then it would have seemed incredible that smoking could be banned from bars, but it is.
Even if the NFL manages to devise a strategy by which it can survive, it is just the top of the pyramid when it comes to football. The base would be pee-wee leagues, high school, and then college programs just below the NFL. What happens to the NFL if the base crumbles due to lawsuits? The top of the pyramid is coming down too.
so these players have decided to sue the NFL because they play in a sport where injuries are fairly common place, including concussions, as well as a slew of knee injuries. and while is could possibly see making changes at the pee wee league level, once players get into high school and college, they are assuming the risks involved in the sport. and it isnt like a rule change or two will do anything. in fact it is illegal to make a helmet to helmet contact and yet it still happens. until players are taught the fundamentals of proper tackling, and to stop using their helmets as a weapon, things are not going to change. in the end i doubt the lawsuit against the NFL will go anywhere because of the assumed risk involved. its not like these players suddenly figured out that they might get injured playing the game, as the vast majority of them have watched other get injured over the years and yet they still chose to play the game.
its like suing nascar because a loved one died in an on track wreck. in fact there is precedence from when the NHRA was sued by a competitor in the early 80s because she was injured in an on track wreck. the ruling was that she assumed the risk in a dangerous sport.
so these players have decided to sue the NFL because they play in a sport where injuries are fairly common place, including concussions, as well as a slew of knee injuries. and while is could possibly see making changes at the pee wee league level, once players get into high school and college, they are assuming the risks involved in the sport. and it isnt like a rule change or two will do anything. in fact it is illegal to make a helmet to helmet contact and yet it still happens. until players are taught the fundamentals of proper tackling, and to stop using their helmets as a weapon, things are not going to change. in the end i doubt the lawsuit against the NFL will go anywhere because of the assumed risk involved. its not like these players suddenly figured out that they might get injured playing the game, as the vast majority of them have watched other get injured over the years and yet they still chose to play the game.
its like suing nascar because a loved one died in an on track wreck. in fact there is precedence from when the NHRA was sued by a competitor in the early 80s because she was injured in an on track wreck. the ruling was that she assumed the risk in a dangerous sport.
I'm not a lawyer, but from what I've read about this 'assumption of risk' will not prove a successful defense in court for the NFL. Take the comparison to tobacco--King James pointed out that it was a health hazard in the early 17th cent., and the Surgeon General's warning has been printed on every pack since the 60's. There is a suggestion out there that the NFL sponsored some junk science studies on concussions, which soft-pedaled the risks, not unlike 'Big Tobacco' was accused of doing. Here's a good interview of a lawyer who runs a web site devoted to football-concussion litigation : The Legal Blitz
Walter Olson is a guy who has been toiling in the field of tort reform for many years. Tort reform is one of those areas where conservatives never really got traction. In fact my impression would be that the right has largely given up on it as a cause.
Now Olson is quoted by columnist Stephen Chapman as saying:
It seems far-fetched given the popularity of football, but then having followed the tobacco wars fairly closely since the early 1990's, back then it would have seemed incredible that smoking could be banned from bars, but it is.
Even if the NFL manages to devise a strategy by which it can survive, it is just the top of the pyramid when it comes to football. The base would be pee-wee leagues, high school, and then college programs just below the NFL. What happens to the NFL if the base crumbles due to lawsuits? The top of the pyramid is coming down too.
People have been calling for the doomsday of the world and many other things and usually are wrong. Boxing has a high rate of brain damage and believe it or not so does soccer.
Playing sports assumes an inherent risk to ones health.
People have been calling for the doomsday of the world and many other things and usually are wrong. Boxing has a high rate of brain damage and believe it or not so does soccer.
Playing sports assumes an inherent risk to ones health.
But this is a little different. There were no lawsuits that I know of over Y2K or 2012/Mayan calendar, but 2000 players are currently suing the NFL, and there is a flood of litigation with non-pro football too. Again 'assumption of risk' doesn't necessarily work given our tort system. Smokers presumably assumed risk, but Big Tobacco still had to pay out $206 billion after being sued.
Walter Olson is a guy who has been toiling in the field of tort reform for many years. Tort reform is one of those areas where conservatives never really got traction. In fact my impression would be that the right has largely given up on it as a cause.
Now Olson is quoted by columnist Stephen Chapman as saying:
It seems far-fetched given the popularity of football, but then having followed the tobacco wars fairly closely since the early 1990's, back then it would have seemed incredible that smoking could be banned from bars, but it is.
Even if the NFL manages to devise a strategy by which it can survive, it is just the top of the pyramid when it comes to football. The base would be pee-wee leagues, high school, and then college programs just below the NFL. What happens to the NFL if the base crumbles due to lawsuits? The top of the pyramid is coming down too.
But this is a little different. There were no lawsuits that I know of over Y2K or 2012/Mayan calendar, but 2000 players are currently suing the NFL, and there is a flood of litigation with non-pro football too. Again 'assumption of risk' doesn't necessarily work given our tort system. Smokers presumably assumed risk, but Big Tobacco still had to pay out $206 billion after being sued.
My point is that most predictions about the end of _____ or the next big ______ or the next stock you have to buy....go wrong.
Even if the NFL loses. And that is a big if, the actual payout might be small or negligible to the NFL.
You do realize that just over 100 years ago football was threatened with extinction before and they simply changed the rules to survive.
Tobacco faced problems in large part for putting non-tobacco chemicals in their product and advertising to minors.
I might see an argument about putting players back in...but the NFL has set up a protocol where one needs clearance...seems individuals would be getting sued then if they lied to the player or forced a player to go back in with a concussion.
P.S. Tobacco is still making $$$
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
