Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/14/clinton-portis-sues-nfl-over-concussions/]Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions - Washington Times[/url]

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

Slightly misleading headline of course, he's joining 4,500 other players in an existing suit.

He definitely paid the price for his playing style. He was one of the hardest running, blocking, and hitting RBs in the game. His career did end far too soon and I do remember many of his concussions late in his career.

I'm not sure the players have a case though...they played this game voluntarily KNOWING that it was dangerous. They knew when they had concussions...and just because they didn't know the medical side effects and consequences does not mean they have grounds to sue their employer.

Just as someone who welds and works with hot metal knows there's a risk of being burnt while doing their job, a pro football player should know there's a chance he'll get hurt, especially head injuries when many were using their own head like weapons to run through opponents.

I understand his side and feel bad that he's going to suffer later in life for playing the game he loves, but I can't believe any of these players didn't see the risks.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

I guess Portis pockets ain't straight.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

Sheriff Gonna SueYa.

Funny how these players weren't suing when they were getting game checks. It's probably because most of these bums don't want a real working job after football so they just try and get money the easy way

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

Even though I wouldn't call players that made the NFL bums, just because it seems like an insane amount of hard work just to make it to the NFL, let alone be extremely successful, I would say they have a sense of entitlement and they do feel the NFL owes them for what they did for the NFL... even though they got paid. It doesn't make sense to me but there are always people suing other people for their own problems. Seems more like a cultural problem than an NFL problem.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

Without reading the complaint, its really hard to imagine that a modern day athlete didnt understand and assume the long term risks involved in playing football.

Especially after a player's first concussion, you would imagine he would be informed of what a concussion is, causes, side effects, ways to avoid future concussions, complications of repeated concussions etc ....

maybe the complaint focuses on NFL bylaws which limit a player's ability to seek an outside second medical opinion and that the players are claiming that each respective NFL team's medical staff intentionally under-informed players????? or intentionally under tested? who knows. I guess if one was to read the complaint, they would know.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

Wonder how many of the 4800 players are having financial issues.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

22. The NFL caused or contributed to the injuries and increased risks to Plaintiffs
through its acts and omissions by, among other things: (a) historically ignoring the true risks of MTBI in NFL football; (b) failing to disclose the true risks of repetitive MTBI to NFL players; and (c) since 1994, deliberately spreading misinformation concerning the cause and effect relationship between MTBI in NFL football and latent neurodegenerative disorders and diseases.

23. On information and belief, the NFL’s motive to ignore and misrepresent the link
between MTBI sustained in NFL play and neuro-cognitive injury and decline was economic. The NFL knew or suspected that any rule changes that sought to recognize that link and the health risk to NFL players would impose an economic cost that would significantly and adversely change the profit margins enjoyed by the NFL and its teams.

^^ here is most succinct summary of the claims against the NFL. Athletic manufacturer Riddell is also a co-defendant for product liability.

* MTBI is a very funny term to me and I do not use it. Mild Traumatic Brain Injury ... no traumatic brain injury should be classified as "mild."

[url]http://nflconcussionlitigation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Master_Administrative_Long_Form_Complaint.pdf[/url]


my take - good luck. its analogous to me suing the entire car industry for not informing that car accidents may injure me. Oh and Im also going to sue the manufacturers for not making a 100% guaranteed safe vehicle for high speed head-on collisions.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

It's a violent sport that requires a helmet. Sort of at your own risk IMO. Idont think since rule changes are making the sport less is any indication of prior wrong doing, but retired players should be taken care of with a pension b/c Goodell is selling the sport out for billion$ and deserves to go to the workers and not his $30 million salary.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

Yup it's always on Goodell.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

I think the older players have a point. The NFL 20-30 years ago and older trotted the players back out there within a few minutes of having a concussion. The original law suits were about the NFL studying concussions and hiding that info from the players because the players not playing was bad for the NFL. But players that have played recently have had enough information about short and long term damage from head injuries. I think the older players are making a mistake by allowing the newly retired ones to join the lawsuit. They knew the risks and played for millions over working in the private sector for $50k or less.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=Mattyk;1018908]Yup it's always on Goodell.[/quote]

With the help of the owners and NFPLA, it sort of is- his agenda and show. I don't think it can be argued against that he has expanded the nfl product but in so doing its partially intended to be more exciting with higher scoring games and appealing to wider markets of kids, women, and the world.

Personally I think Thrusday night football, London games, talk of 18 game season, partial blame for rule changes that effect kickoffs, lowering helmet, celebrations, imposing cap penalties, and the change from laid back Taligliabeau to ruling with an iron fist and being an NFL Sheriff doesn't help his cause to like him or not judge him b/c football shouldn't become soft. I like defense.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=Green Monk Machine;1018915]With the help of the owners and NFPLA, it sort of is- his agenda and show. I don't think it can be argued against that he has expanded the nfl product but in so doing its partially intended to be more exciting with higher scoring games and appealing to wider markets of kids, women, and the world.

Personally I think Thrusday night football, London games, talk of 18 game season, partial blame for rule changes that effect kickoffs, lowering helmet, celebrations, imposing cap penalties, and the change from laid back Taligliabeau to ruling with an iron fist and being an NFL Sheriff doesn't help his cause to like him or not judge him[B] b/c football shouldn't become soft. I like defense.[/B][/quote]

Goodell isn't the one suing for injuries sustained while playing. Nearly all these rules that "soften" the game, are being driven by the lawsuits of former players. The owners/Goodell are not suddenly humanitarians, they simply don't want to lose in court, and if they don't show attempts to protect and inform the players, they will lose.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=Mattyk;1018908]Yup it's always on Goodell.[/quote]

Goodell gave me a concussion in an incident involving a skateboard and a pony.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=skinsfaninok;1018881]Funny how these players weren't suing when they were getting game checks. It's probably because most of these bums don't want a real working job after football so they just try and get money the easy way[/quote]

I agree with this post 100%. I think it is deplorable and pathetic that CP joins a long list of mostly broke and disgruntled ex-players. I saw CP's name pop up on total access this evening, along with Cadillac Williams, and Daunte Culpepper. I think it is more than a coincidence that all three players sucked at the end of their careers and it was obvious from listening to them speak that none of them was going to be able to do anything post-football.

I had heard that Portis was slightly better with his money than other ex-players who were in the lawsuit. I don't challenge Portis' number, but consider that he only was a full time starter for like 4 seasons due to other injuries, and that means he was clocking in at least 3 concussions a year.

Most all of them say that they have injury problems now that will prevent them from living a normal life. I wonder more if the fact that they don't know how to do anything else, most did not complete their education, and most are penniless, is what prevents them from living a normal life.

Our very own Pat White sued the NFL for "career ending injuries", but lo and behold he dropped the lawsuit when the Redskins came calling. And folks, it's a miracle, because now the guy who had all these problems and couldn't live a normal life is seemingly doing fine and back in the game....

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1018917]Goodell isn't the one suing for injuries sustained while playing. Nearly all these rules that "soften" the game, are being driven by the lawsuits of former players. The owners/Goodell are not suddenly humanitarians, they simply don't want to lose in court, and if they don't show attempts to protect and inform the players, they will lose.[/quote]

Well if that's the case, the nFL has the money to continue football and use the proceeds towards better pensions. If money is coming in where does it go? I'm not waiting all year for flag football. Changing a game and making it softer/safer takes away from the experience of the fan. Stat records change. I mean if players get hurt so be it. Hope they stayed in college, got a degree, saved $, and can live off what the union has agreed upon as far as medical coverage. Being a pro athlete is still a better living than not. Nowadays the defense isn't even allowed to hit a "defenseless receiver" but that receiver has protection to catch the ball and score and threaten the oppositions success? I see that as misbalanced. Guys lose jobs if receivers score. Idk, I feel like this emphasis to grow the nfl and be more appealing serves a majority that doesn't even appreciate or understand the sport if high scoring and non exististent defense is what is thrilling.

I'm off my soapbox. I'm going to go back outside and yell at cars driving too fast on my street.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

I don't think CP has money issues.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

Sorry, but part of the reason for the insane high salaries that players get paid is because of the risk. Football really isn't that unique. Several other jobs have high "danger" pay too; and you can't take the pay, understand the risk, and then expect more money for taking that risk after the job is done.

I don't think people would pay as much to watch, nor would players get paid as much to play, non-violent (think flag) football. Players have the money to buy the most protective equipment money can buy and no one forces them to take the job if they don't want to risk long term injuries. Maybe next, soldiers can start suing the military.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=GoSkins!;1018933][B]Sorry, but part of the reason for the insane high salaries that players get paid is because of the risk. [/B] Football really isn't that unique. Several other jobs have high "danger" pay too; and you can't take the pay, understand the risk, and then expect more money for taking that risk after the job is done.

I don't think people would pay as much to watch, nor would players get paid as much to play, non-violent (think flag) football. Players have the money to buy the most protective equipment money can buy and no one forces them to take the job if they don't want to risk long term injuries. Maybe next, soldiers can start suing the military.[/quote]


That isn't why their salaries are high. Risk has nothing to do with it. The demand for the sport has everything to do with it. Baseball, basketball, and golfers make just as much (if not more) than football players and their salaries are guaranteed. What their sport doesn't have is really any risk of permanent injuries to the brain. If risk had anything to do with salaries, NASCAR drivers would be the highest paid people in any sport.

People enjoy the brutal violence within the game, and have so since the days of the gladiator in the Roman coliseum.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=Green Monk Machine;1018915]With the help of the owners and NFPLA, it sort of is- his agenda and show..[/quote]
BS ,you have blamed everyone but the players ,the players knew what they were doing end of story .Do I think the NFL should do more to help retirees....yes but are they at fault for this ...NO . Goodell sure as hell isn't at fault.

The NFL might not be at total fault, but I do think they bear some responsibility, as well as the players, teams, and team doctors.

It's funny to me that the majority sides with the multi-billion dollar industry of the NFL. And are quick to judge the players saying they are making a money grab.

This is a very complex issue and the side you tend to hear the most from is the more powerful side, the NFL. When you read about what a lot of these former players are going through its actually pretty sad. I mean how soon do we forget about all of the suicides that have happened over the past few years. Maybe it's just me but I would wait a second before I said they all are just lazy bums that can't get a job after the NFL.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=Giantone;1018952]BS ,you have blamed everyone but the players ,the players knew what they were doing end of story .Do I think the NFL should do more to help retirees....yes but are they at fault for this ...NO . Goodell sure as hell isn't at fault.[/quote]

You go into rage mode every time someone criticizes Goodell. Its almost like you expect the Giants to be allowed to fake injuries to get extra timeouts and know that Goodell wouldnt do anything about it. Not like that would ever happen though...

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=NC_Skins;1018939]That isn't why their salaries are high. Risk has nothing to do with it. The demand for the sport has everything to do with it. Baseball, basketball, and golfers make just as much (if not more) than football players and their salaries are guaranteed. What their sport doesn't have is really any risk of permanent injuries to the brain. If risk had anything to do with salaries, NASCAR drivers would be the highest paid people in any sport.

People enjoy the brutal violence within the game, and have so since the days of the gladiator in the Roman coliseum.[/quote]

But isn't the "demand for the sport" based on the "brutal violence within the game"? I didn't say that it is the only reason for high salaries, but I believe that it is an unfortunate reality in pro football. Just like wrecks in NASCAR. Without the wrecks, fewer people would watch, and salaries would be lower. Since there are wrecks, more people watch, which allows for higher salaries, and those higher salaries entice pro drivers to risk serious injury or death on the race track.

This same idea holds true in football. People aren't looking for players to get permanently injured, but they are waiting for those hits that lay out the other players. Those hit sometimes cause permanent damage. And I don't know if a player can blame the NFL for what the individual players do on the field. I wonder why the players don't sue the guy who hit them and caused the concussion too??? It is clear that this is where the NFL is going. They want to say that the rules would prevent issues if it wasn't for the players breaking the rules with "head shots". Therefore, sue the players, not the NFL.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=GoSkins!;1018959]But isn't the "demand for the sport" based on the "brutal violence within the game"? I didn't say that it is the only reason for high salaries, but I believe that it is an unfortunate reality in pro football. Just like wrecks in NASCAR. Without the wrecks, fewer people would watch, and salaries would be lower. Since there are wrecks, more people watch, which allows for higher salaries, and those higher salaries entice pro drivers to risk serious injury or death on the race track.

This same idea holds true in football. People aren't looking for players to get permanently injured, but they are waiting for those hits that lay out the other players. Those hit sometimes cause permanent damage. And I don't know if a player can blame the NFL for what the individual players do on the field. I wonder why the players don't sue the guy who hit them and caused the concussion too??? It is clear that this is where the NFL is going. They want to say that the rules would prevent issues if it wasn't for the players breaking the rules with "head shots", therefore, sure the players not the NFL.[/quote]

NC's point is that salaries are tied directly to the amount of money that the sport brings in. He used other sports as examples. Golf being the best one. Since people watch it, they can bid out the rights to networks to air it for a lot of money. It doesnt have to have violence for people to like it. The "Brutal violence of Golf" is absolutely nothing, yet people still watch it.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=mlmdub130;1018957]The NFL might not be at total fault, but I do think they bear some responsibility, as well as the players, teams, and team doctors.

It's funny to me that the majority sides with the multi-billion dollar industry of the NFL. And are quick to judge the players saying they are making a money grab.

This is a very complex issue and the side you tend to hear the most from is the more powerful side, the NFL. When you read about what a lot of these former players are going through its actually pretty sad. I mean how soon do we forget about all of the suicides that have happened over the past few years. Maybe it's just me but I would wait a second before I said they all are just lazy bums that can't get a job after the NFL.[/quote]

Agreed.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=mlmdub130;1018957]The NFL might not be at total fault, but I do think they bear some responsibility, as well as the players, teams, and team doctors.

It's funny to me that the majority sides with the multi-billion dollar industry of the NFL. And are quick to judge the players saying they are making a money grab.

This is a very complex issue and the side you tend to hear the most from is the more powerful side, the NFL. When you read about what a lot of these former players are going through its actually pretty sad. I mean how soon do we forget about all of the suicides that have happened over the past few years. Maybe it's just me but I would wait a second before I said they all are just lazy bums that can't get a job after the NFL.[/quote]

Well said.

The NFL's argument is essentially the same argument made by employers prior to worker's compensation laws: Hey, you took a job at a sawmill - you worked with saws, you had to know you were at risk of cutting off your hand.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

Here's what I don't get. These guys weren't hired off the streets. They played football for YEARS before they were in the NFL. How does the NFL bear ALL the responsibility? Colleges? High schools? Pop Warner?

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1018978]Well said.

The NFL's argument is essentially the same argument made by employers prior to worker's compensation laws: Hey, you took a job at a sawmill - you worked with saws, you had to know you were at risk of cutting off your hand.[/quote]

The guy working the saw mill makes $8 an hour. Losing his hand effectively kills his ability to survive. Not as much for football players. Sort of subjective I know but I don't think a lot of people can empathize on this. Especially when contrasted to the risks that a lot of football players probably take by ingesting things they shouldn't. I guarantee a non-insignificant percentage of the 4500 used a PED at some point. That's called hypocrisy.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[QUOTE=Giantone;1018952]BS ,you have blamed everyone but the players ,the players knew what they were doing end of story .Do I think the NFL should do more to help retirees....yes but are they at fault for this ...NO . Goodell sure as hell isn't at fault.[/QUOTE]

Players WERE mentioned as referenced to the NFPLA that represents their interests and I support the players, but thanks for trying to have a position.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=FRPLG;1018982]The guy working the saw mill makes $8 an hour. Losing his hand effectively kills his ability to survive. Not as much for football players. Sort of subjective I know but I don't think a lot of people can empathize on this. Especially when contrasted to the risks that a lot of football players probably take by ingesting things they shouldn't. I guarantee a non-insignificant percentage of the 4500 used a PED at some point. That's called hypocrisy.[/quote]

Another distinction would be that, in the main, these guys are suing for workplace injuries [I]after[/I] they have left the workplace.

In the civil setting, the burden is on the NFL/Owners to prove assumption of the risk and, if so, they aren't at legally at fault. I believe this means that, in order to prevail, the owners have to prove (1) the players knew or should have known that concussion injuries could occur and (2) the players played despite their knowledge of the injury risk.

As I read the Complaint overthemountain quoted, the players are saying "we didn't know the [I]extent of the risk[/I]. Further, at least as late as 1994, the NFL [I]did know[/I] but failed to inform us about how dangerous it would likely be to our [I]long term[/I] health.

I [I]think[/I] the players are emphasising the long term or late-in-life consequences and essentially saying "Sure, we wore helmets and ran into each other so - yeah - we knew we could get hurt NOW and not play anymore. We agree; we assumed that risk. BUT, we didn't know that we would be hurt LATER. We never intended to assume [I]that[/I] risk. Further, the NFL's misinformation prevented us from making an informed choice on whether or not to assume it."

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

Portis was on the radio yesterday and discussed the lawsuit. He said he didnt know the specific claims/arguments of the suit but he did say the following:

1) he didnt know what a concussion was (dont really buy that personally)

2) he didnt know what the diagnosis of a concussion was (I buy that to a degree)

3) when he had a head hit/injury, he was told to shake the cobwebs off and go back out there (I buy this.)

I could def see the medical staff down playing concussions and turning a blind eye to diagnosing them. Especially before a few years ago.

Even last year after all the new rules on mandatory concussion testing, you still saw mike vick laying on the field, fletcher calling for medical staff, then medical staff not administering the mandatory concussion test and saying he had to get grass out of his helmet and sent him back out there.

joe - interesting case that might be similar to the nfl concussion suit. I am sure you have read it before. I dont know the name offhand (______ v. CSK et al) but it was out of baltimore where a railroad worker sued for damages for injuries and disabilities related to walking on train tracks over many years. I think the employer argued, in part, assumption of risk. COA found in favor of the employee.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=Skinzman;1018960]NC's point is that salaries are tied directly to the amount of money that the sport brings in. He used other sports as examples. Golf being the best one. Since people watch it, they can bid out the rights to networks to air it for a lot of money. It doesnt have to have violence for people to like it. The "Brutal violence of Golf" is absolutely nothing, yet people still watch it.[/quote]

Yeah, I get that point. I think you misunderstood mine.

Your right about golf. I just disagree that people would watch football if not for the hitting. Maybe I'm wrong, but it is my opinion.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1018989]Another distinction would be that, in the main, these guys are suing for workplace injuries [I]after[/I] they have left the workplace.

In the civil setting, the burden is on the NFL/Owners to prove assumption of the risk and, if so, they aren't at legally at fault. I believe this means that, in order to prevail, the owners have to prove (1) the players knew or should have known that concussion injuries could occur and (2) the players played despite their knowledge of the injury risk.

As I read the Complaint overthemountain quoted, the players are saying "we didn't know the [I]extent of the risk[/I]. Further, at least as late as 1994, the NFL [I]did know[/I] but failed to inform us about how dangerous it would likely be to our [I]long term[/I] health.

I [I]think[/I] the players are emphasising the long term or late-in-life consequences and essentially saying "Sure, we wore helmets and ran into each other so - yeah - we knew we could get hurt NOW and not play anymore. We agree; we assumed that risk. BUT, we didn't know that we would be hurt LATER. We never intended to assume [I]that[/I] risk. Further, the NFL's misinformation prevented us from making an informed choice on whether or not to assume it."[/quote]

How does the NFL (and no other football league ever in operation) bear responsibility? How could any one player attribute his issues to hits only sustained in the NFL? Seems incredibly dubious to me.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=FRPLG;1018980]Here's what I don't get. These guys weren't hired off the streets. They played football for YEARS before they were in the NFL. How does the NFL bear ALL the responsibility? Colleges? High schools? Pop Warner?[/quote]

Well, if RedskinRat, saden1, Smootsmack and Matty all beat the crap out of me, I can sue anyone of them for the entire amount of harm done to me (I'd pick saden1 b/c he studied law at a Holiday Inn). It is then up to saden1 to (1) join, by third party complaint, all the others; or (2) after I beat him in court, sue Matty, SS and RR for contribution to the judgment against him.

It [I]is[/I] a defense to say "I am not the person that hurt you." It [I]is not [/I]a defense to say "I am not the [I]only[/I] person that hurt you." The purpose is to provide full recovery to a wrongly injured party. Thus, when a group of people wrongly harm you, the duty of specifically proving how much damage each person caused lies with those who caused the injuries - not with the person who suffered them.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1018994]Well, if RedskinRat, saden1, Smootsmack and Matty all beat the crap out of me, I can sue anyone of them for the entire amount of harm done to me (I'd pick saden1 b/c he studied law at a Holiday Inn). It is then up to saden1 to (1) join, by third party complaint, all the others; or (2) after I beat him in court, sue Matty, SS and RR for contribution to the judgment against him.

It [I]is[/I] a defense to say "I am not the person that hurt you." It [I]is not [/I]a defense to say "I am not the [I]only[/I] person that hurt you." The purpose is to provide full recovery to a wrongly injured party. Thus, when a group of people wrongly harm you, the duty of specifically proving how much damage each person caused lies with those who caused the injuries - not with the person who suffered them.[/quote]

You should have also named me in that beating because I probably have better insurance.LOL

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=Lotus;1018871]Sheriff Gonna SueYa.[/quote]

lol...

In all seriousness, the NFL better be pooling alot of money together to settle these claims and claims in the future. Players will win this one if it goes to court imo.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=over the mountain;1018991]Portis was on the radio yesterday and discussed the lawsuit. He said he didnt know the specific claims/arguments of the suit but he did say the following:

1) he didnt know what a concussion was (dont really buy that personally)

2) he didnt know what the diagnosis of a concussion was (I buy that to a degree)

3) when he had a head hit/injury, he was told to shake the cobwebs off and go back out there (I buy this.)

I could def see the medical staff down playing concussions and turning a blind eye to diagnosing them. Especially before a few years ago.

Even last year after all the new rules on mandatory concussion testing, you still saw mike vick laying on the field, fletcher calling for medical staff, then medical staff not administering the mandatory concussion test and saying he had to get grass out of his helmet and sent him back out there.

joe - [B]interesting case that might be similar to the nfl concussion suit. I am sure you have read it before. I dont know the name offhand (______ v. CSK et al) but it was out of baltimore where a railroad worker sued for damages for injuries and disabilities related to walking on train tracks over many years. I think the employer argued, in part, assumption of risk.[/B] COA found in favor of the employee.[/quote]

[I]CSX Transp., Inc. v. Pitts[/I], 203 Md. App. 343 (2013). I had not read it and did just a cursory review of the opinion. I didn't see any discussion on assumption of the risk - questions as to Fed preemption, notice and damage issues. Maybe I missed it.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=Chico23231;1018996]lol...

In all seriousness, the NFL better be pooling alot of money together to settle these claims and claims in the future. Players will win this one if it goes to court imo.[/quote]

Not so sure. Even if it survives a motion to dismiss based on assumption of the risk, players still have to prove NFL knew or should have known these injuries likely to occur. Again, as someone said, they wore helmets and pads - of course injuries were likely, it was forseeable that the injuries could manifest themselves after they finished playing, [I]and[/I] it forseeable that the exact nature of the future injury wouldn't be known until it actually manifested itself.

You knew the game was violent, you knew former players suffered from a variety of injuries and that some of these injuries were different from anything they suffered while playing. Further, [I]no one[/I] knew about the significance or extent of damage done by concussions until very recently ... until then it was all conjecture.

Re: Clinton Portis sues NFL over concussions.
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;1018998][I]CSX Transp., Inc. v. Pitts[/I], 203 Md. App. 343 (2013). I had not read it and did just a cursory review of the opinion. I didn't see any discussion on assumption of the risk - questions as to Fed preemption, notice and damage issues. Maybe I missed it.[/quote]

its not a 2013 case, its from the 70s or 80s .. havent read it in 5 plus years. not a big deal.

i think a 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim motion to dismiss may require an amended complaint bc the complaint doesnt appear to state any specific dates of injury/negligence to any particular/specific party. im dealing with one of those right now.

also, maybe the specific employees of the NFL, nfl teams may need to be named as parties for respondeat superior pleading purposes but i am not sure if fed rules allow for a lessening of the pleadings in class action cases. im guessing they do.