I see, take a shot at the example, but not the principle - which is pretty clear. If your employer did not follow safety regulations and best practices and you were injured as a direct result - you can sue.
Not taking a shot at anything what I was trying to highlight is there are set safety guidelines in the building trade with ppe as law. There is safety ppe for all sports played including headgear but no legislation in place to make this mandatory in adult rugby. What suprises me is the amount of players now coming forward with head injuries but there is no increase in players taking head protection.
You really MUST put the link from the news article you’ve posted this from! It’s copyright laws you are breaking.
If you don’t know how to do it, please ask.
Its OK to describe a story without a link, just not to post the copied article.
This last comment is right.
Further, copying and republishing much, if not all, of someone’s work likely breaks copyright laws.
In short, the first post in this thread is fine. It merely paraphrases the gist of what’s reported.
The third post, meanwhile, takes an item in its near-entirety and potentially hinders the publisher’s audience figures and, subsequently, income through lost advertising revenue.
The more this practise is done here, the greater the likelihood of issues. Whatever the intentions of the poster.
Not taking a shot at anything what I was trying to highlight is there are set safety guidelines in the building trade with ppe as law. There is safety ppe for all sports played including headgear but no legislation in place to make this mandatory in adult rugby. What suprises me is the amount of players now coming forward with head injuries but there is no increase in players taking head protection.
Another (simpler) angle on this, since I assume none of us are legal experts, is that Ward will be following advice from the players union and his or their lawyers.
I appreciate that some of the discussion is about whether we should be such a litigious society, but we are where we are. The lad has suffered injury and has a right to seek compensation.
If someone knocks you down and they were doing 40 in a 30 area, the argument about whether the speed limit is correct or not is academic - we operate under the law as it stands.
The NFL did, however, experience success in its efforts to mitigate preseason practice concussions. After tweaking its acclimation period at the start of training camp, and requiring players at certain positions to wear Guardian Cap pads on their helmets, the NFL brought practice concussions to an eight-year low of 25.3 Feb 2023
The NFL did, however, experience success in its efforts to mitigate preseason practice concussions. After tweaking its acclimation period at the start of training camp, and requiring players at certain positions to wear Guardian Cap pads on their helmets, the NFL brought practice concussions to an eight-year low of 25.3 Feb 2023
I thought you were advocating for NFL style helmets in RL TBH. You mean the sponge helmets they wear over the top being a good thing.
No idea why large soft helmets are not mandatory in training in RL. There's no downside to that (other that vanity).
I assume he is sueing Leeds on some form of basis that they didn’t follow proper concussion protocol which meant he played too soon and suffered another consussion which led to his retirement.
That scenario is completely different to what you have suggested above.
It isn’t about players knowing there’s a risk of injury, it’s about duty of care.
If you were a builder and a brick fell on your head and gave you a brain injury, would you sue the company if you found out they skipped health and safety and it directly resulted in your injury? Or would you shrug it off and say there’s always a risk on a building site?
Not the best example.
You couldn't sue anyone. He would not be allowed on site without wearing a hard hat and all ppe so building company has fulfilled his duty of care. I would also argue as same sort of scull cap is easily available for rugby players.
I see, take a shot at the example, but not the principle - which is pretty clear. If your employer did not follow safety regulations and best practices and you were injured as a direct result - you can sue.
The H&S at Work Act (1974) places the responsibility for H&S on employers, employees, visitors, contractors etc (among others) and everyone is responsible for H&S and for the H&S of others as well as themselves. You would have to prove negligence on the part of the employer that caused an injury. Sue all you want - most compensation claims fail due to individuals being proved to have failed to follow their training, taken part in horseplay that had gone wrong or simply failed to take reasonable responsibility for their own actions. Proving an employer failed to follow safety regulations could be classed as corporate negligence in the most serious of cases (with criminal proceedings). Proving it though is rare due to the enforcement officers employed by Environmental Health, fire inspections, insurance provisions that the businesses have to comply with etc etc
I believe Leeds are suing their former Club Doctor. This could be linked
Whatever has "gone on", it is speculated that the ongoing treatment both at home and abroad has cost Mr Ward a considerable sum of money and that he is looking for more money to assist with further treatment
on the litigious nature of the claim it will be an interesting one
for me the key seems to be that he was played in 2 games consecutively in which the first he sustained a concussion as is his claim i believe. The first game though sounds like a pre-season friendly and i wonder if the same rules apply
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure
