And rightly so ... what a stupid thought to put a fake grass covered bounce pad . DickheadsWas just about to come in and say that. His case was based around the metal "bounce disc" placed in the center of the oval so the umpires could get a higher/better bounce. From memory he sued the AFL and also the AFC.
I'd suggest a lot of it has to do with the knowledge of the person giving advice. We had a team of credentialed people advising Sam. It comes down to their competence given their knowledge, experience, and credentials, and if they should have known better.So what happens now if a sanfl player cops a bad concussion ?
Are they able to sue the sanfl. What about amateurs ?
At what level of footy does the responsibility go back on the player
Only if its within the scope of the insurance though.This is how you get to the insurance policy. The action enlivens the indemnity.
If AFC want to keep their indemnity, they would have to be working with the insurer rather than the player.Saw the headline and this was my first thought. It just the legal avenue they need to take to get to the insurers. I'd expect AFC would full well know this and be working with him in some capacity.
If we don't have a Lloyd's syndicate underwriting and/or being the actual insurers for some unusual shit (including this) I'd be shocked.Only if its within the scope of the insurance though.
In the event that the insurance didnt cover, for whatever reason, the plaintiff would almost certainly try to recover the award of damages against the defendants as named.
That all sounds great but doesn't really mesh with your original post that this is like the aunty sueing her 8 yr old nephew for breaking her wrist during a big hug to access insurance for treatment.I think there's a bit of misunderstanding about insurance and litigation interposed throughout this thread.
1. Maurice Blackburn would be well aware of what insurance policies the defendants (including the AFC) would have. By the way their claims operate they are geared towards obtaining payment from insurers. This is their business model. They particularly understand insurance policies medical professionals have. Put a different way, by operation of the Court's Rules, prior to filing the action Maurice Blackburn are well aware of the insurance policies, and interaction between, of all defendants.
2. Upon making a claim for which we are insured, the AFC insurer has a right of subrogation which it will exercise and effectively becomes the "real" defendant.
3. Contracts of insurance have a duty of utmost good faith. That is, any act which would have the effect of undermining the AFC's insurer, in favour of someone suing us would constitute a breach of the AFC's policy and the AFC would not be indemnified. There would be no acting in concert with Shaw.
It's a tad more nuanced that what people seem to understand in this thread.
Not disputing that you were told this or what you’ve been told; but I wonder how much the players would know about the legal thresholds for medical malpractice. I suspect you do thoughPreface this by saying I don't know Sam, but one of the Port boys was talked to me about this a year ago. Apparently, he had a really bad rep around the club (Crows) and some of the players bitched and moaned to the Port boys about him. The suit has been in the pipeline for over a year and is only now being made public. Port guy said Shaw was absolutely not in the right and the Crows were mildly furious as they saw this as him doing the dirty on them when they had been "more than generous."
This is all hearsay. I don't know Sam or the details as to what went on. I may have been told completely the wrong thing, but all I know is this is what I was told a year ago, and that the suit was going to come out shortly after my convo with Port (and then it never came to fruition until now). Won't say any more.
Perhaps further complicated by questions of what, if any, vicarious liability exists for clubs and their doctors.If we don't have a Lloyd's syndicate underwriting and/or being the actual insurers for some unusual shit (including this) I'd be shocked.
Our administration is worthy of criticism but Tippett aside having an over appetite for risk isn't one of them.
The further interesting question is the claim viz a viz the proportionate liability legislation. If we are to assume all defendants are liable apportioning liability between the various parties will be an interesting proposition.
In any event it will be astonishing if this doesn't get settled quietly and confidentially. I would bet this will be the last we publicly hear of it
I don't think you really read the post you quoted in full?That all sounds great but doesn't really mesh with your original post that this is like the aunty sueing her 8 yr old nephew for breaking her wrist during a big hug to access insurance for treatment.
The fact is he's accused us of negligence in his treatment.
Now, we all feel for Sam and we all love the club and would like to think this is some kind of handshake to see Sam looked after on the back of our insurance premiums.
But clearly these are serious accusations against the club and its medical professionals for negligence in his treatment.
I thought it was clear that I was referring to the implication arising from the original post stating that this case was similar to the case of the aunt sueing her child nephew for hugging her too hard in order to access insurance to pay for treatment.I don't think you really read the post you quoted in full?
Jo pretty clearly rebutted any such suggestion.
Initial thought is average career v average wageThe interesting question in a matter of this kind might be: how do you assess lost future earnings?
Smart move then. Apparently Mackay was also going to leave unless we rookied his brother-in-law.I remember people posting at the time that rookie listing Shaw so that he could access medical care was the sort of compassionate gesture that would breed loyalty among the playing group, drive our culture, show players that the club really cared and help bond us together.
Since then we've lost Lever, Cameron and McGovern.