The question today is whether Alex McKinnon should sue the National Rugby League for the injuries he sustained in a game last year. Well today learned colleagues, I will argue that he should not sue the NRL on the basis of negligence. First and foremost, on behalf of the National Rugby League and myself, we would like to extend our condolences for such a horrendous situation and we wish him all the best. Representing the defence, the nature of this case regards clams that the NRL was negligent in relation to Alex’s three way tackle in a game between the Newcastle Knights and the Melbourne Storm. This tackle saw Alex come into contact with Jordan McLean, Jesse Bromwich, and Kenny Bromwich, in which he was lifted up and awkwardly landing on …show more content…
This test involves the “suggestion that “but for” the negligent act of the defendant, the plaintiff would have not have suffered the injury” (Blay 2010.) Hence, but for the negligence of Jordan McLean lifting Alex in tackle, he would not have become permanently injured. This translates to the fact that we at NRL were not responsible for this injury and in fact did not breach the duty of care that we indirectly owed him. Rather Alex should be seeking damages from who was at fault, in this case, Mr McLean. Furthermore, as the tackle was on field, in a clear contact sport, the NRL 2015 Edition of the rule book clarifies matters regarding player misconduct – shifting the cause of Alex’s injuries to Jordan McLean. Section 15, 1a, states that “a player is guilty of misconduct if he: makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly, or carelessly” (National Rugby League …show more content…
Mr McKinnon must have, under the assumption of risk, known that there was a possibility for the risk of injury resulting in paralysis. Over data collected over a period of six years, showed that a total of 12 players in the rugby league code [1997 – 2002] have suffered from spinal injuries (Carmody D, et.al 2005.) This assumes that Alex must have known the possible risks and under the Civil Liability Act 2002, section 5G, “injured persons presumed to be aware of obvious risks.” Thus resulting in the assumption that he knew what could happen in such a high contact sport. Once again, this can be seen in the case Cafest v. Tombleson [2003] NSWCA 210. In this case Julianne Tombleson went roller-skating and broke her right wrist, claiming that she was not properly informed of the risks involved with the activity. However, the court found that there was a myriad of pre-emptive warnings to skaters such as highly visible signs that stated protection gear available for hire and that the rink centre will not be held legally liable to any injuries that may be sustained. This confirms and rectifies the concept of volenti non fit injuria. If the risks are clearly set out and known, one could not claim negligence for compensation, relating to the fact that Alex indisputably would have realised the potential
In the case of Schmidt v. Massapequa High School, the plaintiff, Schmidt, alleged negligent of the voluntary assistant coach and Massapequa UFSD (Union Free School District). On January 22, 2008, Vincent D’Agostino, who was a voluntary assistant coach at Massapequa High School, was allowed to participate in a wrestling practice by Massapequa UFSD. During the practice, D’Agostino picked the plaintiff up and threw him to the ground. While they were matching, D’Agostino’s body fell onto the body of the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff’s injury, fracture. Thus, the plaintiff, Schmidt, argued that Massapequa UFSD did not supervise D’Agostino correctly, and stated that the application of the doctrine of primary assumption is unwarranted. The plaintiff submits his own affidavit, his mother’s affidavit, and an affidavit of Steven Shettner. Since this case was submitted by the plaintiff, it is considered as a civil case. Shettner is an experienced wrestling coach. He states that there is risk of causing an injury in extracurricular sports; however, awareness of the risk assumed is to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff.
McKichan v. St. Louis Hockey Club, L.P. was a personal injury case filed on March 17, 1998, in which the plaintiff claimed that the defendant club was vicariously liable for their employee’s actions that caused the plaintiff’s injury. The injury in question occurred in Peoria, Illinois during an IHL game on December 15, 1990 between the Peoria Rivermen and the Milwaukee Admirals. While the St. Louis Hockey Club technically wasn’t playing in the game, they can be held liable for the injury, as the Peoria Rivermen are a subsidiary of the club. During the third period of said game, the defendant, Stephen McKichan, a goalie for the Admirals, was both injured and rend unconscious by a body-check from a Peoria player. This body-check occurred after play was stopped due to the hockey puck floating out-of-bounds. Also, the defendant player ‘s body-check had occurred after the referee had blown his whistle twice to signal the play stoppage. After the injury, the defendant’s player received a game misconduct and a suspension. The player would also go on to settle with the plaintiff out
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
Darren Entwistle, originating in Montreal, Quebec; the executive chairman, former president and chief executive officer of TELUS-a telecommunications company, is a successful and eminent Canadian businessman. He’s the person who ran TELUS from a regional telephone service into a $25-billion national wireless player and also helped it grow into one of Canada’s three major telecommunications companies, which is valued at $4.3 billion. “Joe is an exceptionally proven and highly capable leader,” Entwistle said in a statement. He is currently stepping aside and assisting his successor Joe in corporating strategy and performance.
Darren Entwistle, originating in Montreal, Quebec; the executive chairman, who used to be the president and the chief executive officer of a communication company - TELUS, is a successful and eminent Canadian businessman. He’s the person who turned a small telephone service company into a $25-billion national Mobile communication company and also helped it becomes one of the major Mobile communication companies, which is valued at $4.3 billion right now. “Joe is an exceptionally proven and highly capable leader” Entwistle said in a statement. He is currently stepping aside and assisting his successor Joe in corporation strategy and performance.
The death of Tim McLean in 2008 on the Greyhound bus in Winnipeg was an absolute tragedy, the details of course absolutely horrendous. Vince Li, now known as Will Lee Baker, was considered to not be criminally responsible on account of his schizophrenia. There was of course a lot of public drawback at that decision at the time, including the victim's family. Recently Will Baker was granted an absolute discharge, which allows him to effectively become a full member of society again, though he has volunteered himself for inspections to ensure he continues his medication. This has led to quite a bit of controversy as many believe he should be jailed or executed for the death of Tim McLean. McLean's family has been fairly outspoken against the
In More v. Bauer Nike Hockey Inc., is the corporation’s responsibility to warn of the limitations of the hockey helmet sufficient, as the B.C. Court of Appeal has put forward?
So whats one more thing to think about? There professional level athletes,they need to give themselves more credit. And yes there right, injuries are bound to happen in a contact sport, but they need to try and do their best to play within the rules that are being set for their benefit.
The failure of the NFL to disclose credible research linking concussions to permanent, hidden long-term brain injury to the players can be interpreted as both ethical and unethical. Ethical theories and traps influenced the NFL’s decision. Not disclosing the research is considered moral by the ethical theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarian ethics considers the best decision is one which maximizes overall happiness and minimizes overall pain is more ethical. Utilitarianism’s goal is to produce the best outcome for the largest number of people. The NFL’s failure to reveal the research connecting concussion to permanent brain injury’s is in line with utilitarian ethics. A larger population benefits from football compared to the small number of
Mr. Kevin Evans is a 60 year old African American male. He is currently incarcerated at the Curran Fromhold Correctional Facility where he has been held since April 29th, 2017. Mr. Evans has been charged with various charges due to Driving under the Influence (D.U.I.). His case is listed for Pre-Trial Conference on April 2nd, 2018.
Recent issues with the NFL not doing enough with head injuries has become a top news issue. the NFL has had several class action lawsuits against them. From several different head injuries that you can get, the post NFL injury is a very rough thing to deal with. Some say the ...
American football or rugby is a sport where injuries are considered to be common. It is not written in your article but I am assuming that in rugby, if a player does not have a minor injury then it is considered that he hasn’t given his best in the game. But the injuries sometimes get too major such as that of Tony Dorsett. He got struck on his neck by a helmet which barreled into him like a Ferrari at 220kmph. Players like Tony Dorsett are injured almost everyday in rugby. These injuries are sometimes long lasting and a perfect example can be of Mr. Dorsett’s CTE. “CTE is caused by the regular thwack-thwack of the player’s head on his helmet.” It obviously must have hurt him a lot and also maybe destroyed his promising and bright career in this game.
Simon, Mallory. “2,000 players unite in suing NFL over head injuries.” Sports section, CNN, 7 June
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)
In today’s society, especially sporting activities involving youth and young adults, it is imperative to ensure the safety of those involved. When an individual is injured either physically, emotionally or both, there is the concern of legal action towards coaches and the association conducting the sporting activity (Wolohan, 2013). The litigious culture that Americans live under has produced a heightened awareness to avoid negligence in athletic activities through proper training and education (Wolohan, 2013). Negligence is defined as an unintended accident that has caused injury to a person or material goods without a premeditated plan of action to cause pain and suffering (Yiamouyiannis, 2008). For that reason, the