Do the governing bodies (World Rugby, RFU, WRU etc) owe players a duty of care in respect of their health and safety? The answer is almost certainly yes (see for example Watson v BBBoC).
Over 70 former professional rugby players are preparing for legal action against the sport’s governing bodies according to this report.
The group litigation seems to be in its early stages, but World Rugby & Unions will be starting to get twitchy.
THREAD on the key issues 👇🏼
Exclusive: Rugby faces group litigation action on concussion | @danscho1 reportshttps://t.co/i246r0c9IS
— Telegraph Rugby (@TelegraphRugby) December 7, 2020
Do the governing bodies (World Rugby, RFU, WRU etc) owe players a duty of care in respect of their health and safety? The answer is almost certainly yes (see for example Watson v BBBoC).
Have the governing bodies breached this duty? This is the first of the major hurdles for any litigation.
The question is essentially whether they acted reasonably in the circumstances.
Did they know about the dangers of concussion and fail to act?
The NFL case was based on the fact that the NFL knew of the dangers and covered them up. I’d suggest that’s unlikely here. However, it may be that WR/Unions should have done more sooner.
For example, in the early 80s it may be that there was no indication that concussion might cause long-term complications but, by the early 2000s, there was.
The second of the major hurdles. Had WR/the Unions acted sooner, would these players not have suffered these long-term effects?
First, this requires a medical link between concussion and the long-term neurological effects. It seems that this can be established.
If we say that they should have introduce an equivalent of the HIA and its associated protocols sooner, would that have stopped the players suffering these long-term consequences?
Had WR/the Unions acted reasonably, would players still have suffered? It is not clear.
For example, it could be argued that closer monitoring of concussion, concussion substitutes and awareness amongst players etc would have halved the risk of a player suffering long-term effects.
However, this is likely to be the most difficult part, and will require detailed scientific analysis, as well as a clear argument about what exactly WR/the Unions should reasonably have done in the first place.
WR/the Unions might argue that the players consented to the risks of concussion by playing the game - the defence of volenti non fit injuria.
However, given the players’ lack of understanding about the long-term impact and their relative lack of resources...
Allowing such a defence here would contradict the duty of care.
Nonetheless, there might be a finding of “contributory negligence” (dependent on facts) which would reduce any award of damages.
A preliminary issue for players will be whether their claim is time-barred. The Limitation Act says claims must be brought within 3 years of the cause of action accruing, or within 3 years of the date of on which the loss could reasonably have been discovered.
If you’re still reading...players will be able to claim compensation for general damages (i.e. pain, suffering and loss of amenity) and special damages (i.e. any financial losses such as lost earnings, medical expenses etc).
Of course, that’s only if they win.
Not quite $1bil huge though, I’d imagine...
Any claim will face an uphill battle, but it will certainly be a fascinating one. Whether it will even reach a courtroom remains to be seen.
I’ll be trying to write a more detailed analysis for https://t.co/vVdFLTy0YY soon!
#sportslaw #concussion #Rugby
More from Sport
1/ The Queen's Gambit is apparently causing demand for chess to surge!
I play daily and coach at my kid's school, so I love seeing the interest
If you're want to learn about chess, here are some great free resources (thread)
2/ How to play & basics
Great YouTube
3/ Opening principles
https://t.co/DGpYH4FzY2
@thechesswebsite
4/ Common beginner
5/ Advanced topics
Chess Holes:
https://t.co/hBwFFjV7RC
6 Power Moves of
I play daily and coach at my kid's school, so I love seeing the interest
If you're want to learn about chess, here are some great free resources (thread)
2/ How to play & basics
Great YouTube
3/ Opening principles
https://t.co/DGpYH4FzY2
@thechesswebsite
4/ Common beginner
5/ Advanced topics
Chess Holes:
https://t.co/hBwFFjV7RC
6 Power Moves of
It's Sunday, Fed blackout, am recovering from soccer match, sipping on double espresso, so of course a perfect time to take on Tyler Cowen here. 🙂
Like many people, I enjoy reading Tyler's blog. But there are times (alright, many times) I disagree with him. This is no big deal. I also disagree with myself sometimes (especially my past self). But his recent post left me
What is he trying to say here? After thinking about it for a bit, I think he's critiquing the idea that "running the economy hot" leads to employment *and* real wage gains. Perhaps the former, but only at the expense of the latter. At least, this is what a textbook IS-LM model
tells us if one "runs the economy hot" through increased fiscal stimulus (on consumption and transfers, not public infrastructure investment). If this is what he meant, then he should have just said so, instead of labeling this a "Keynesian" proposition.
In fact, this property follows as a *neoclassical* proposition that is embedded in the IS-LM framework. (For non-economists, note that Keynes did not invent IS-LM; the framework was developed later by Hicks as an interpretation of *some* parts of the General Theory.)
It is hardly phony, especially on social media, to refer to IS-LM models and the like as \u201cKeynesian.\u201d Krugman pushing it and, for better or worse, rising in popularity.
— tylercowen (@tylercowen) January 17, 2021
Like many people, I enjoy reading Tyler's blog. But there are times (alright, many times) I disagree with him. This is no big deal. I also disagree with myself sometimes (especially my past self). But his recent post left me
What is he trying to say here? After thinking about it for a bit, I think he's critiquing the idea that "running the economy hot" leads to employment *and* real wage gains. Perhaps the former, but only at the expense of the latter. At least, this is what a textbook IS-LM model
tells us if one "runs the economy hot" through increased fiscal stimulus (on consumption and transfers, not public infrastructure investment). If this is what he meant, then he should have just said so, instead of labeling this a "Keynesian" proposition.
In fact, this property follows as a *neoclassical* proposition that is embedded in the IS-LM framework. (For non-economists, note that Keynes did not invent IS-LM; the framework was developed later by Hicks as an interpretation of *some* parts of the General Theory.)
You May Also Like
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".