Jim McMahon, 6 others sue NFL over concussions

(CBS/AP) PHILADELPHIA - Six former players and one current player have sued the NFL in Philadelphia over the league's handling of concussion-related injuries, the first potential class-action lawsuit of its kind.

The players accuse the league of training players to hit with their heads, failing to properly treat them for concussions and trying to conceal for decades any links between football and brain injuries.

The plaintiffs include two-time Super Bowl champion Jim McMahon, who has said he played through five concussions but now frequently walks around "in a daze" and forgets why he entered a room.

The suit accuses the NFL of negligence and intentional misconduct in its response to the headaches, dizziness and dementia that former players have reported. The suit, filed Wednesday, seeks medical monitoring along with funds to pay for the care of injured players.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said the league had not yet seen the lawsuit but would vigorously contest any such claims.

athletics when explained by the medical field by example is 2 different things and how many football players are doctors of medicine

mid 70’s in Texas in August during 2 a day practices

if you asked for water you were laughed at, scoffed, and singled out

concussions ? if you had one and your eyes untangled, you proved you were not a sissy.....to who ? a coach w/o a dimes medical experience

these players are not whiners but examples of why the evolution of football safety is necessary

football players today are bigger, faster, and effective

why then should not the head and the heads safety evolve too

after all, we’ve seen the consequences of a concussion’s past

I think this is going to depend heavily on what state's tort law applies, and from what I've seen so far, that could be a very complicated and heavily-litigated issue in itself.

In Pennsylvania, as in many other states, "primary" assumption of risk, where the plaintiff had full understanding of the risk and voluntarily encountered that risk and manifested consent to relieve the defendant of his duty to protect against that risk, continues to serve as a complete bar to recovery. There doesn't have to be an express written consent, however - many states hold that voluntary participation in a sporting event implicitly constitutes primary assumption of the risks inherent in that sport.

"Secondary" assumption of risk, which involves the knowing and voluntary encountering of the risk but no consent to relief of duty, has generally been subsumed into the various comparative negligence schemes of the 46 states that have adopted them. That means that the plaintiff can still recover in the face of secondary assumption of risk, but that his recovery will be reduced by the percentage by which his negligence (or rather his assumption of the risk) is found to have caused his injury.

Those are just the basics, though, and there are a lot of other considerations and factors which vary from state to state, not to mention the fact that the law on assumption of risk has been in flux in many of those states. Also, three jurisdictions where NFL games are or have been regularly played, Maryland, D.C., and North Carolina, still apply common-law contributory negligence where "secondary" assumption of risk generally remains a complete bar to recovery.

There are going to be a lot of other issues besides assumption of risk, as well, such as waiver, estoppel, the "fellow-servant doctrine", and the exclusive remedy provisions of the states' workers compensation statutes. The latter has been the subject of some litigation concerning the NFL. Just last May, the federal court for the Western District of Pennsylvania observed in Miami Dolphins v. Newson that the Pennsylvania courts have held that private contracts (in this case the NFL CBA) cannot waive the application of Pennsylvania's workers' compensation laws. This isn't the case in every state, though, and workers' compensation laws in general work differently in many states.

On top of all this is the fact that intentional torts appear to have been alleged. I think the crux of the players' argument here is that the NFL either negligently or intentionally concealed from the players the true extent of the risk of serious head injury. If they can establish that, they may be able to get around not only assumption of risk, but many other defenses the NFL might raise.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find the complaint yet outside of PACER (which charges for searches), so I don't know exactly what the players are alleging or what they're asking for, so it's hard to even begin to predict how any of this will play out.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.