Player Litigation

Remove this Banner Ad

Baltimore Jack said:
A tort is a wrongful act in which harm or injury is caused to another person. The term “tort” covers a vast range of actions in tort law and is divided into subcategories, which include “intentional tort.” Intentional tort occurs when a person intends to perform an action that causes harm to another. For intentional tort to be proven, it is not required for the person causing the harm to intentionally cause an actual injury, they must only intend to perform the act. For instance, if a person intentionally frightens a person with a bad heart, who then has a heart attack as a result of the action, it would be an intentional tort even though the person did not have the intention of causing the heart attack. To explore this concept, consider the following intentional tort definition.


Definition of Tort
Noun

  1. A wrongful or unlawful act or infringement of rights which lead to civil legal liability
  1. A civil wrong that occurs when a person causes harm to another with knowledge that harm or injury can occur
Origin

Late 16th century Medieval Latin tortum

Elements of Intentional Tort
Proving an intentional tort requires that the victim show the defendant acted with the specific intent to perform the act that caused the injuries or damage. The defendant does not necessarily have to know that injuries would occur as a result of the act, just that the act is subject to consequences. In order to successfully sue another person for intentional tort, certain elements must be in place:

Intent
Intent is defined as acting with purpose or having knowledge that the act in question can cause injury or harm to another person. If the element of intent is not in place, it can be referred to simply as a tort.

Acting
Acting requires the person to perform an act that results in harm or injury to another. Thinking about or planning to perform an act does not constitute acting.

Actual Cause
This element requires the victim to prove that, without the defendant’s actions or “causes,” the injuries or damage would not have occurred.
Click to expand...
Interesting as that is - why would players choose action under tort than contract? I would have thought damages for breach of contract would be the more likely cause of action.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

LoungeLizard said:
Yep, but if they hold out till they get it?
By the looks of things, the EFC don't want this in the courts, are there any greedy players?
Click to expand...

If Essendon expect the insurers to chip in then they may not have any say at all as to whether it goes to Court.

It could well be the insurers decide to contest, then the AFL chips in the cash because no-one wants any more mess to be made public (other than supporters of the game who really dont count in the grand scheme of things).
 
HairyO said:
If Essendon expect the insurers to chip in then they may not have any say at all as to whether it goes to Court.

It could well be the insurers decide to contest, then the AFL chips in the cash because no-one wants any more mess to be made public (other than supporters of the game who really dont count in the grand scheme of things).
Click to expand...
Yep, and how many of the legals think this also?
Pay up or we go to court, it costs a lot to keep my clients mouth shut.
 
LoungeLizard said:
Yep, and how many of the legals think this also?
Pay up or we go to court, it costs a lot to keep my clients mouth shut.
Click to expand...

I suspect everyone knows that it will never go to court or that the players will never appeal the CAS decision. It is all about posturing and seeing how the punters feel, before deciding on the $$$ amount.

It is interesting to see the players starting to split. So maybe some are pushing for more than others. But you would have thought at least 1 or 2 would be decent human beings who just want to accept what they did and move on.

Though the lure of the almighty is a powerful one.
 
mxett said:
True, but if the club doesn't at least try to spread some of the responsibility to the players the payouts could potentially break them
Click to expand...
It will break them they may be broke already they will have to pay out all existing contracts and all those top up players. The afl seemed to accept they will have bail the efc out to the tune of 10s of millions of dollars
 
RegHickeyStand said:
It would be interesting to know who the 15 are and if it has anything to do with payscale.

The lowest paid player could get as much hush money for keeping mum about what went on as the captain. For mine, and even money chance the 15 will be approached to drop it.
Click to expand...
Difference between class action and individuals is the choice everything to do with payscale.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Proper Gander said:
Interesting as that is - why would players choose action under tort than contract? I would have thought damages for breach of contract would be the more likely cause of action.
Click to expand...
Quite possibly, just pointing out that the players signing consent forms, or purposely lying to ASADA may not be a huge factor in the players taking action, not matter which avenue they choose
 
Baltimore Jack said:
A tort is a wrongful act in which harm or injury is caused to another person. The term “tort” covers a vast range of actions in tort law and is divided into subcategories, which include “intentional tort.” Intentional tort occurs when a person intends to perform an action that causes harm to another. For intentional tort to be proven, it is not required for the person causing the harm to intentionally cause an actual injury, they must only intend to perform the act. For instance, if a person intentionally frightens a person with a bad heart, who then has a heart attack as a result of the action, it would be an intentional tort even though the person did not have the intention of causing the heart attack. To explore this concept, consider the following intentional tort definition.


Definition of Tort
Noun

  1. A wrongful or unlawful act or infringement of rights which lead to civil legal liability
  1. A civil wrong that occurs when a person causes harm to another with knowledge that harm or injury can occur
Origin

Late 16th century Medieval Latin tortum

Elements of Intentional Tort
Proving an intentional tort requires that the victim show the defendant acted with the specific intent to perform the act that caused the injuries or damage. The defendant does not necessarily have to know that injuries would occur as a result of the act, just that the act is subject to consequences. In order to successfully sue another person for intentional tort, certain elements must be in place:

Intent
Intent is defined as acting with purpose or having knowledge that the act in question can cause injury or harm to another person. If the element of intent is not in place, it can be referred to simply as a tort.

Acting
Acting requires the person to perform an act that results in harm or injury to another. Thinking about or planning to perform an act does not constitute acting.

Actual Cause
This element requires the victim to prove that, without the defendant’s actions or “causes,” the injuries or damage would not have occurred.
Click to expand...
image.jpeg
 
Throw said:
T. The club will never get to where it was and where it wants to be by even allowing the perception that it is blaming the players for the club's own negligence.
Click to expand...

It wasn't 'negligence', that's the AFL's and media narrative. It was cheating.

CAS made it official.
 
Better Loosen Up said:
Just out of interest.

What about the players that weren't involved in the doping program and weren't able to get a game ahead of those that were? What if they were de-listed as a result? Is there grounds for them to sue the club?
Click to expand...
Why not? (Not sure - hadn't thought about it. Loss of chance maybe? I just thought it sounded good to find more people out there who could rumble about suing someone. Long preseason)
 
mxett said:
I'd like to better understand what they knew in 2012. If CAS is correct and they willingly took banned substances while keeping everything from the doc I can't see why they should get much money out of the club. However if they were unaware that banned substances were used, which is what I believe, then they deserve a reasonable payout
Click to expand...

Well it'll be interesting then if this does get to court and the finger pointing starts.

We might actually find out what really happened in 2012. That is if the court can decipher all the "he said / she said" crap to properly apportion blame.
 
HairyO said:
Would you want Carlisle in with you for a class action? When he claims that EFC and the AFL cost him money, wouldnt the first thing they do be show him and his line of coke and say that he cost himself?

This is in addition to CAS blaming him for the doping that went on - which affects all the players.
Click to expand...

Are you discounting the effect of past action by other action closer to present?

Not to strawman it, but he could argue that EFC and AFL drove him to addiction, just like alcoholics with PTSD.
 
mxett said:
Could you explain the consequences of the players talking? They already have the maximum ban, and the staff involved in the saga are already gone. What else will talk result in?
Click to expand...

It depends if the AFL feels it is on top of the food chain.

If it feels there is a body able to punish it for the actions of administrators acting for the AFL then they may want to keep any arrangements made, notices given, warnings provided etc quiet.

Especially if there is an election coming up, tough on corruption etc etc.
 
Tayl0r said:
It depends if the AFL feels it is on top of the food chain.

If it feels there is a body able to punish it for the actions of administrators acting for the AFL then they may want to keep any arrangements made, notices given, warnings provided etc quiet.

Especially if there is an election coming up, tough on corruption etc etc.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be nice.
 
Tayl0r said:
It depends if the AFL feels it is on top of the food chain.

If it feels there is a body able to punish it for the actions of administrators acting for the AFL then they may want to keep any arrangements made, notices given, warnings provided etc quiet.

Especially if there is an election coming up, tough on corruption etc etc.
Click to expand...
So it would be the AFL trying to pay for the players silence?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Player Litigation

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top