A second concussion class action has been commenced.

[Slartibartfast]

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

 

[Power Raid]

wait until directors start serving jail time

interesting journey ahead

 

[BigPond101]

They wanted the AFL pay and lifestyle while playing but none of the risk or downside. It's sad to think what it means for the future of the game but hopefully virtual reality takes over soon

 

[le dominateur]

Up to $1.5 Billion [emoji44] as if the NFL and AFL have similar income streams.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[The Educator]

wait until directors start serving jail time

interesting journey ahead

Wait until someone posts something more absurd than this

Interesting thread ahead

 

[Power Raid]

Wait until someone posts something more absurd than this

Interesting thread ahead

you do know the laws about criminal negligence and thus jail time for directors is already in place?

it is completely relevant to the debate and journey ahead

 

[Black Panther]

Lawyers

 

[The 747]

Based on what has come out about how the AFL has handled concussion research this is worth a shot.

 

[WillHayward]

Very interesting.
Unfortunately no one in the industry will pay for this and they will shift the cost on to the consumer.
We all know the AFL is a monopoly (like a religion) business so they can always shift costs on to us poor bludgers.

Get ready for even more polluting gambling ads to help fund the concussion liability fund...

 

[jim boy]

I think this action has some chance, although the figure of $1billion is fanciful, could get up to $10-20 million. They have to show that the AFL was negligent. Rules will only get tougher though, perform any action that might just result in head-high contact and you'll be out. Also expect more penalties to be taken against those who put themselves in danger, eg running backwards into a pack.

 

[Bianconeri]

Hopefully this forces the AFL to take reducing congestion seriously instead of reducing the interchange cap by 20 and calling it a day.

 

[Blackhawk42]

I sympathise with the affected players, knowing how debilitating the after effects of concussion can be (thankfully not first hand).

However, is there honestly a leg to stand on here from a legal sense if you consider the following very likely scenario taking place...

Player A: Gets knocked out during a game in 1995.
Team doctor, with limited knowledge of the true damage it can cause long term: 'You feel okay?'
Player A: 'Yeah, get me back out there, I'm fine'.

Unless a coach or doctor forced an unwilling player to return to the field, exactly who is retrospectively at fault for any post-concussion symptoms? Genuine question.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I sympathise with the affected players, knowing how debilitating the after effects of concussion can be (thankfully not first hand).

However, is there honestly a leg to stand on here from a legal sense if you consider the following very likely scenario taking place...

Player A: Gets knocked out during a game in 1995.
Team doctor, with limited knowledge of the true damage it can cause long term: 'You feel okay?'
Player A: 'Yeah, get me back out there, I'm fine'.

Unless a coach or doctor forced an unwilling player to return to the field, exactly who is retrospectively at fault for any post-concussion symptoms? Genuine question.

It’s not about an individual coach or a doctor forcing an injured player to continue though that is an issue in itself.

its about the AFL as a sporting body who are ultimately responsible for the health and welfare of the players and when they were aware of the long term damage concussion causes and what they did to prevent this from happening in the game as well as restricting players who had suffered concussion .

 

[Blackhawk42]

It’s not about an individual coach or a doctor forcing an injured player to continue though that is an issue in itself.

its about the AFL as a sporting body who are ultimately responsible for the health and welfare of the players and when they were aware of the long term damage concussion causes and what they did to prevent this from happening in the game as well as restricting players who had suffered concussion .

But were they aware of the long term damage at the time? If not, exactly how are they responsible? Protocols were brought in once the science caught up.

 

[M Malice]

Historical cases are a minefield, the long term affects of concussion have only started to be scientifically acknowledged in the last decade or so, what were the games administrators of the past supposed to do? Be able to see into the future? I'm 63 years of age and used to follow the old Brisbane Rugby League competition 30+ years ago and it was a badge of honour to get up from a head knock and play on, they were seen as wimps if they went off. It was a semi regular occurence to see players stumbling around the field and playing on after they regained their balance.

Going forward I see it as a risk the the players of today accept when the decide to play the game, life in general is not risk free, authorities just have to use the latest medical information they have to reasonably mitigate the risk, which I think the AFL are now doing.

 

[Inspecta Gadget]

They should all forget to show up to court to give their argument some added credence

 

[HugeJohnson]

At first I thought they already got paid with risk factors like concussion factored in to it. Like would a soldier would sue the army for being shot, what did you sign up for, exactly?

Then I saw that they are ineligible for WorkCover. That's pretty ****ed, I can't see why that should be the case. Does the AFLPA provide assistance for those with follow-up medical costs etc at least or they have something as an equivalent? They should have some sort of a case if they've just been left out to deal with the consequences themselves.

 

[Farm Boy]

They should use the Cripps case as an example of what the AFL really think about concussion - they couldn’t care less. The AFL incentivized rules that encouraged players not to go to ground, which results in all players to keep their feet, meaning they’ll all be at the same level. This means more head clashes. They won’t be as hard a head clashes as the old days but just ten fold more of them. Accumulative head knocks cause CTE. That much is proven as a fact.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[WillHayward]

So not enough money in the game to help with players health.

But Kingy wants the top players to be paid more money (just because).

 

[Osho]

I think this action has some chance, although the figure of $1billion is fanciful, could get up to $10-20 million. They have to show that the AFL was negligent. Rules will only get tougher though, perform any action that might just result in head-high contact and you'll be out. Also expect more penalties to be taken against those who put themselves in danger, eg running backwards into a pack.

Full defendant negligence could be argued against or mitigated to the extent it is shared by both parties by mutual agreement to partake, in which case injury caused would be partially self caused.

On the other side, that the AFL has shown awareness of risks, and may have accumulated more evidence of risks they didn't share fully with players, and over time instituted rules to alleviate risks could point to a level of intention rather than just negligence.

 

[Osho]

They should all forget to show up to court to give their argument some added credence

I offer a tragic ROAR!

 

[The Educator]

you do know the laws about criminal negligence and thus jail time for directors is already in place?

it is completely relevant to the debate and journey ahead

Yes, I was well aware of "criminal negligence" being in place and that directors (and anyone really) can go to jail under WHS law for an egregious failure of safety duty particularly where it leads to death.

I am also aware, unlike you, that there is zero chance of this occurring here

 

[Osho]

I sympathise with the affected players, knowing how debilitating the after effects of concussion can be (thankfully not first hand).

However, is there honestly a leg to stand on here from a legal sense if you consider the following very likely scenario taking place...

Player A: Gets knocked out during a game in 1995.
Team doctor, with limited knowledge of the true damage it can cause long term: 'You feel okay?'
Player A: 'Yeah, get me back out there, I'm fine'.

Unless a coach or doctor forced an unwilling player to return to the field, exactly who is retrospectively at fault for any post-concussion symptoms? Genuine question.

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

 

[The Educator]

At first I thought they already got paid with risk factors like concussion factored in to it. Like would a soldier would sue the army for being shot, what did you sign up for, exactly?

Then I saw that they are ineligible for WorkCover. That's pretty ****ed, I can't see why that should be the case. Does the AFLPA provide assistance for those with follow-up medical costs etc at least or they have something as an equivalent? They should have some sort of a case if they've just been left out to deal with the consequences themselves.

I am sure they do. There may be complaints about adequacy etc but it seems a significant focus of the AFLPA for some time

It also seems intuitively obvious why athletes have not previously been eligible for work cover. I would think the better solution would be for each sport to institute an insurance regime (or fund that effectively operates like one).

The challenge would still be, in cases like this, attributing the cause

 

[Demonic Ascent]

At first I thought they already got paid with risk factors like concussion factored in to it. Like would a soldier would sue the army for being shot, what did you sign up for, exactly?

Then I saw that they are ineligible for WorkCover. That's pretty ****ed, I can't see why that should be the case. Does the AFLPA provide assistance for those with follow-up medical costs etc at least or they have something as an equivalent? They should have some sort of a case if they've just been left out to deal with the consequences themselves.

Soldiers are eligible for compensation for injuries (physical or mental) sustained during the course of active service. Not sure whether they have a Common Law Serious Injury scheme like we do in Victoria though where they can sue for lump sum payouts for negligence.

Professional sports people are not eligible for workers compensation (in Victoria at least). There are other groups of people also not covered inluding TV show contestants from memory.