A second concussion class action has been commenced.

[p4p1]

This does have huge implications for the game.
Helmets and contact avoidance rules could come into play and change the whole fabric of the game to ensure safety .

These changes will not be popular in the public’s eyes but will be made easier for the AFL to make the alterations if their hand is legally forced by costly lawsuits.

Haven't helmets been shown to make the effects worse? IE NFL where they use their head to driving into other players.

 

[Seedsfan]

I think players left with permanent injuries after playing pro sport deserve some sort of compensation, we can agree to disagree.

Their compensation is the money they got as professional athletes. The game owes more to the local player or local junior forced out of the game due to concussion

 

[The Educator]

really? zero chance of that? I thought this is exactly what is happening and thus the thread regarding legal action about serious injury


The Crimes (Workplace Deaths and Serious Injuries) Bill is one of the more controversial pieces of legislation to be introduced into the Victorian Parliament during the Bracks’ Government’s first term. The Bill incorporates a package of amendments to the Crimes Act 1958; Dangerous Goods Act 1985; Equipment (Public Safety) Act 1994; Occupational Health and Safety Act 1985 1 ; Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 and Accident Compensation Act 1985. If this Bill is passed, it will place an added requirement on businesses to ensure the safety and health of their employees at work with greater accountability for senior officers including directors. The Bill assesses the conduct of a corporation by reference to what a ‘reasonable corporation in such circumstances’ would have done. Consequently the offences are constructed so as to ensure that the liability of a corporation is direct rather than vicarious, a more appropriate basis for determining liability for serious criminal offences.

The most substantive amendments proposed by the Bill apply to the Crimes Act. The Bill introduces four new offences under the Crimes Act, namely, ‘corporate manslaughter’ and ‘negligently causing serious injury’ and seeks to impose criminal liability on bodies corporate and senior officers. The offences carry significant penalties for the bodies corporate and potential imprisonment for senior officers. The Bill also amends the workplace safety legislation by increasing the maximum penalties for workplace safety offences and disallowing corporations from claiming privilege against self-incrimination.

The new law is expected to come into operation in Victoria in or about mid 2002. Workplace deaths occurring after that date and involving criminal negligence by employees, agents or senior officers, will result in manslaughter prosecutions.

You copy paste but you don't really think

 

[Power Raid]

You copy paste but you don't really think

where do you differ when it comes to serious injury?

 

[Power Raid]

Actually it does, when you're arguing that an employee of the AFL (which is a legal identity) should go to jail there must be evidence to support & show that they acted outside the scope of their employment.

no that's not the case at all

Criminal negligence is about risk identification, mitigation and compliance to mitigation. It goes well beyond "an act of ones own folly"

ie a company identifies drugs in the work place are an issue.

if the company doesn't have systems in place, the systems don't work or monitor the systems implemented to ensure compliance, they face criminal negligence.

So if drug testing was determined the risk mitigation tool and the testing wasn't regular or adhered to, then this is an example of criminal negligence.

Even worse, in this case the "act of ones own folly" was the employee but the directors face the consequences.

 

[The Educator]

where do you differ when it comes to serious injury?

The sensible people in this thread are discussing the prospects of a successful class action (and generally doubting) under civil law.

You are (apparently seriously) suggesting industrial manslaughter may be successfully prosecuted here somehow. In support you have
-identified you know such a thing exists
-copy and pasted an article at the time a safety duty was introduced relating to industrial manslaughter

Neither of these are arguments.

There is not the remotest chance that someone from the VFL/AFL/clubs etc is going to be prosecuted and jailed for "corporate negligence causing death" or anything like that.

The AFL may settle out of court to avoid a public fart hanging around and looking like it doesn't care about past players.

 

[Power Raid]

The sensible people in this thread are discussing the prospects of a successful class action (and generally doubting) under civil law.

You are (apparently seriously) suggesting industrial manslaughter may be successfully prosecuted here somehow. In support you have
-identified you know such a thing exists
-copy and pasted an article at the time a safety duty was introduced relating to industrial manslaughter

Neither of these are arguments.

There is not the remotest chance that someone from the VFL/AFL/clubs etc is going to be prosecuted and jailed for "corporate negligence causing death" or anything like that.

The AFL may settle out of court to avoid a public fart hanging around and looking like it doesn't care about past players.

please provide support for your reference to industrial manslaughter

the legislation I refer to re criminal negligence also covers serious injury

I have no doubt the AFL consider criminal negligence on a "very" regular basis, as it is a real risk based on modern work practices and legal expectations. ie why do you feel concussion protocols have been implemented, sling tackles banned, ducking rules changed and I dare say even speccies will be reviewed at some point.

 

[_Mike_]

the legislation I refer to re criminal negligence also covers serious injury

Which must establish intent.

You'll have a hard case arguing intent to cause injury on that basis

 

[kaiserchief13]

Negligence doesn't necessarily require intent, as I understand it.

So you can take a doctor to court over not treating a condition you had even though no knowledge of how to treat it existed at that time?

 

[Back One Out]

Can I sue my high school and suburban footy club for the concussions I suffered as a teenager?

 

[Osho]

So you can take a doctor to court over not treating a condition you had even though no knowledge of how to treat it existed at that time?

Long bow!

 

[_Mike_]

Can I sue my high school and suburban footy club for the concussions I suffered as a teenager?

No, the limitations statute of each state will specify a window for action on a claim against negligence.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The AFL must know better about concussion and dont feel the need to get involved. This will be indicative of the AFL stance if they decide not to address the senate and shows their true feelings on this matter, that being they are focussed on the fiscal outcomes and not the players welfare.

Four of the nation's sporting codes — the National Rugby League, Rugby Australia, Boxing Australia and Football Australia — fronted the hearing in Canberra on Wednesday and acknowledged the link between head trauma and serious neurodegenerative disease.

The inquiry will continue, though it remains unclear when the AFL will address the Senate.

Memory problems and a lack of support: Senate inquiry on concussion hears of rugby league legend's difficult final days

The Senate inquiry into concussions and repeated head trauma hears an emotional plea from the daughter of late Bulldogs legend Steve Folkes, the first NRL player to be diagnosed with chronic traumatic encephalopathy — a degenerative brain disease.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Obeanie1]

wait until directors start serving jail time

interesting journey ahead

How would an AFL Director face jail time?

Especially now after so many rule changes and focus on protecting the head. It still remaims a high contact, impact game.

Boxing as an industry still operates.

Directors have a responsibility to ensure risks are eliminated or mitigated. And the AFL has done that to an extent.

The big test will come with a serious head injury in a legitimate marking contest when someone's head is caved in by a knee. The AFL to date have refused to outlaw that part of the game.

 

[Power Raid]

How would an AFL Director face jail time?

Especially now after so many rule changes and focus on protecting the head. It still remaims a high contact, impact game.

Boxing as an industry still operates.

Directors have a responsibility to ensure risks are eliminated or mitigated. And the AFL has done that to an extent.

The big test will come with a serious head injury in a legitimate marking contest when someone's head is caved in by a knee. The AFL to date have refused to outlaw that part of the game.

I suggest it is an interesting journey ahead as the laws regarding OH&S are forever increasing such as criminal penalties being introduced for death and serious injury in the work place.

The example you provide is probably the best example I can think of, where this risk is clear and yet no risk mitigation implemented.

Another example of where risk "remained" open for way too long was the "head is sacrosanct" and all the rules that surrounded head high contact. The AFL got a tick for identifying the risk, implementing solutions and monitoring the solutions. Where they get a cross was the solutions were failing to achieve the objective and encouraging the ducking, dropping of knees and the lifting of the arm to promote head high contact. It will be interesting to see what transpires from this in the years ahead.

In regards to boxing, don't confuse "it still operates" with having no risk of directors going to jail. It may take just one jail sentence to see UFC, boxing and even footy to completely change.

 

[Square Peg]

At the extreme level - does anyone know what a sport like boxing does where nearly every event ends in concussion? I get the boxers aren't employees, but the organisations running the sport surely would have advanced plans for what would presumably be a high prevalence of post concussion problems?
It seems an unsolvable problem, in that you can't eliminate it from the game regardless of how many rules you put in to protect the head, in a contact sport with tackling the head will get injured somehow. So at a simplistic level the answer is by all means try and promote the message of the head being sacred but to accept you can't eliminate it, and just have a no fault compensation scheme - even if that will be rorted to some extent as all no fault compo schemes are, it will still be easiest path. The problem is the message that sends to little Jack and Jill's parents that the sport is inherently dangerous, and future participation.
As I said, an unsolvable problem. I assume one day we'll just be watching computer generated simulations and AI AFL. People are falling in love with bots already, maybe even I could overcome ny scepticism and learn to love a virtual Michael Walters

10

Michael Walters

Age

33

Ht

176cm

Wt

77kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

17.2

4star

K

11.0

4star

HB

6.2

4star

M

3.9

4star

T

2.9

4star

G

1.7

5star

D

20.9

5star

K

11.8

5star

HB

9.1

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

3.3

4star

G

1.0

4star

D

13.0

4star

K

9.4

4star

HB

3.6

3star

M

4.4

4star

T

1.8

4star

G

0.8

4star

one day.

 

[Angak]

Gil was accused this week of being more worried about the dollars than the concussion issue itself, he will be shitting himself now.

The AFL is set to face a class action from former players suffering from the effects of concussion, with a Melbourne law firm signalling it is preparing to go to the Victorian Supreme Court seeking compensation.

The firm's managing principal, Michel Margalit, said that following class actions brought in the United States by American footballers against the NFL resulting in a $1 billion settlement, she believed severely injured former AFL players could be awarded compensation of more than $2 million each for their pain and suffering and economic loss


Ms Margalit said none of the injured players her firm had spoken to had received any form of compensation for the injuries they sustained while playing Aussie Rules.

The law firm is echoing calls for an overhaul of current workers' compensation schemes, given professional sport players are exempt from coverage.

"As it stands, AFL players are excluded from seeking WorkCover in Victoria which stop them making claims for medical and other expenses and weekly payments,'' Ms Margalit said.

Melbourne law firm set to launch class action against AFL over concussion

Australia's AFL is set to follow in the footsteps of the NFL, facing a major class action over concussion, with a Melbourne law firm saying it has spoken to "numerous" former men's and women's players suffering from the effects of brain injuries.

www.abc.net.au

Obviously we need proper protocols around concussion. Ultimately players need to assume risk.

That's why I say players need to get paid more. 26% of revenue share is no where near enough. What is AFL doing with the other 74% ?

 

[maskmcgee]

Anyone who supports this lawsuit can answer me this: How does the game continue to exist if these payouts continue despite every player, certainty now, knowing the risk before they sign a contract?

 

[Professor Knowall]

There’s still a lot of disagreement in the medical profession about CTE, as per this New York Times article from just a few months back -
Scientists Say Concussions Can Cause a Brain Disease. These Doctors Disagree.

But law firms will keep driving this, as they stand to potentially make mega multi-millions out of this (these compensation law firms usually sweep up 40-50 % of any settlements paid in legal fees). It’s a great money earner for the suits.

 

[Square Peg]

There’s still a lot of disagreement in the medical profession about CTE, as per this New York Times article from just a few months back -
Scientists Say Concussions Can Cause a Brain Disease. These Doctors Disagree.

But law firms will keep driving this, as they stand to potentially make mega multi-millions out of this (these compensation law firms usually sweep up 40-50 % of any settlements paid in legal fees). It’s a great money earner for the suits.

Yeah but that bird has already flown, the legal system doesn't understand science - every poor outcome must have a cause (preferably a rich powerful one), every victim must be compensated. There is no way the game can avoid confronting how they're going to deal with a lot of players with a lot of symptoms, regardless of whether there is a direct causative relationship between some or all of those symtoms and getting a head knock in a tackle.

 

[Power Raid]

At the extreme level - does anyone know what a sport like boxing does where nearly every event ends in concussion? I get the boxers aren't employees, but the organisations running the sport surely would have advanced plans for what would presumably be a high prevalence of post concussion problems?
It seems an unsolvable problem, in that you can't eliminate it from the game regardless of how many rules you put in to protect the head, in a contact sport with tackling the head will get injured somehow. So at a simplistic level the answer is by all means try and promote the message of the head being sacred but to accept you can't eliminate it, and just have a no fault compensation scheme - even if that will be rorted to some extent as all no fault compo schemes are, it will still be easiest path. The problem is the message that sends to little Jack and Jill's parents that the sport is inherently dangerous, and future participation.
As I said, an unsolvable problem. I assume one day we'll just be watching computer generated simulations and AI AFL. People are falling in love with bots already, maybe even I could overcome ny scepticism and learn to love a virtual Michael Walters one day.

The challenge for regulators is betting is probably a bigger revenue source of boxing than anything else (perhaps pay per view could rival). Any regulations that result in banning the sport may simply push it underground and unregulated completely.

I can't explain any other reason why it hasn't been banned.

PS. I love boxing and even watch old fights from the golden age

 

[Slartibartfast]

Obviously we need proper protocols around concussion. Ultimately players need to assume risk.

That's why I say players need to get paid more. 26% of revenue share is no where near enough. What is AFL doing with the other 74% ?

Never heard of employees taking responsibility for the risk, it is the employers normally .
why should footy be any different?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Collingwood WAFL player commences legal action against the club regarding her concussion while playing.

Former Collingwood AFLW vice-captain Emma Grant sues Magpies over concussion

Emma Grant was a foundation player and vice-captain with the Magpies before a concussion forced her into premature retirement.

www.abc.net.au

 

[FlyHigh18]

Most companies that are pinged are done so because they covered up knowledge of the harm their product was causing. This is the worst kind. I feel like knowledge of concussion spread naturally, there was no cover up. It was a worldwide thing, the AFL wasn’t hoarding the secret.

They also get pinged if they were very obviously negligent, like a poorly designed kitchen appliance.

But contact sport (the element within the product causing harm) has been around for hundreds of years, it’s not an AFL invention, plus it’s legal.

The AFL can show they acted immediately upon finding out, which they probably did via the protecting the head rules.

But was that the best they could have done? Did they act quick enough? It probably comes down to those two questions

Without a cover up jail time is a bit of a stretch. If you’re going to put someone in jail for something so widely known, then wtf was everyone else doing?

 

[Rusty Brookes]

Collingwood WAFL player commences legal action against the club regarding her concussion while playing.

Former Collingwood AFLW vice-captain Emma Grant sues Magpies over concussion

Emma Grant was a foundation player and vice-captain with the Magpies before a concussion forced her into premature retirement.

www.abc.net.au

Not sure she's got much of a claim here to be honest. Collingwood complied with the AFL's guidelines (one week of not playing at the time, she was permitted to return to training - not playing - after three) and she'd already had concussions. There's no indication of what the training included and whether training was going to exacerbate the effects of the concussion. There's no guarantee that she would have been playing going forward given the AFLW is increasingly becoming a younger woman's game so the lost earnings call is going to be hard to establish. There has to be some understanding that a concussion is possible playing a high collision sport like AFL footy.

The only case I can see is if the AFL knew about the effect of ongoing concussion and did nothing to address the issue or established guidelines that are not governed by what the established medical position is. And as noted, that does seem to be changing. I do believe concussion is a serious issue (and the AFL showed their hand with not suspending Cripps last year) but I think the full cause and effect for this case and the historic ones, is going to be hard to establish. Other factors such as alcohol will come into play. The understanding of concussion at the time the injuries occurred will come into play. The players own actions will come into play.