News Article: Tide of college football concussion lawsuits begins

bamachile

Hall of Fame
Jul 27, 2007
7,992
1
55
56
Oakdale, Louisiana
Tide of college football concussion lawsuits begins

As many as 50 class-action lawsuits contesting how the NCAA, major college football conferences or individual schools handled concussions will be filed in the coming months by former players seeking damages for lingering brain injuries and ailments.

The first batch of six lawsuits was filed Tuesday and Chicago-based attorney Jay Edelson said the next wave will likely be filed within the next two weeks.


"The reason that we're bringing so many of them instead of one giant one is because the NCAA successfully argued to the court that we shouldn't be allowed to bring just one big case," Edelson said Wednesday. "Because of that we have to file suit on a per school basis."


The first six lawsuits were filed by players who played for Georgia, Auburn, Vanderbilt, Oregon, Utah and Penn State. The former football players claim problems ranging from loss of memory and cognitive function to dementia.
If this gets too political, it could easily get pushed to the NS board. We'll start it here, though.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
IMO, any football player in the last 10-15 years knew the risks and assumed them when they decided to suit up. It starts to get fuzzy before then, but it would be hard to prove that a particular school knew the risks and ignored them. Can you be held negligent if you are unaware of a risk?
 

LA4Bama

All-SEC
Jan 5, 2015
1,624
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
IMO, any football player in the last 10-15 years knew the risks and assumed them when they decided to suit up. It starts to get fuzzy before then, but it would be hard to prove that a particular school knew the risks and ignored them. Can you be held negligent if you are unaware of a risk?
I think your facts make the opposite point of your conclusion. If people knew 15 years ago, then so did schools. But schools did nothing about head injury until much much more recently. Honestly, I'd guess 10 years is the absolute outer limit where some students might be thought to have an inkling. Did anyone start talking about CTE until after 2006? I doubt it was something a significant percentage of the public had even heard of until 2009. The targeting rule hasn't been around that long.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
My mom always told me football was dangerous. I thought just about everyone knew getting hit in the head did harm.

I honestly have trouble believing anyone played football without understanding there can be a risk associated. This isn't to discount those that were injured, but who are boxers going to sue?

To me the only time they should really have grounds to sue would be in two scenarios. The first is in which players were pushed to play despite injuries, when they wanted to and should have been resting and healing instead. The other is in which football players were deliberately mislead in terms of the risks. Outside of that? How is it any different than getting on a motorcycle? Anyone with a lick of common sense had to understand there's risk involved.
 

im4uainva

All-SEC
Jul 3, 2011
1,080
39
67
Charlottesville, Va
I'm not saying that these kids don't have a legitimate beef, but, I'm wondering how many of these players were the ones that didn't make it to the NFL, and maybe, maybe, haven't been too successful since they were through with college? This could wind up being the payday they've always dreamed about.


Roll Tide!
 

capnfrog

All-American
Aug 17, 2002
3,556
0
155
Pell city, Al. U.S.A.
I'm not saying that these kids don't have a legitimate beef, but, I'm wondering how many of these players were the ones that didn't make it to the NFL, and maybe, maybe, haven't been too successful since they were through with college? This could wind up being the payday they've always dreamed about.


Roll Tide!
Maybe they wanted to play even though they knew the risks but didn't want to harm their chances of going to the pro's. The answer to the problem may be in no kid left behind, where the Pro teams put millions apiece into a kitty to be divided between all the players, but then you'll have every mom and her sister going out for the football team so they can get a piece of the pie
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
Is there something like a statute of limitations on these deals? I also wonder how Lane Beardon's leg is doing these days, and if he has any regrets over punting with a torn ACL.
 

uafanataum

All-American
Oct 18, 2014
2,917
1,366
182
Maybe they wanted to play even though they knew the risks but didn't want to harm their chances of going to the pro's. The answer to the problem may be in no kid left behind, where the Pro teams put millions apiece into a kitty to be divided between all the players, but then you'll have every mom and her sister going out for the football team so they can get a piece of the pie
My question is what about people like Prothro and that kid from VT I believe from 2 years ago that kept getting concussions so he had to quit. They both laid their bodies on the line and got nothing from college football except a schollarship. I do not think lawsuits are the answer, but something needs to be done about the system.
 

gman4tide

All-SEC
Nov 21, 2005
1,906
442
107
55
Flint Creek
Is there something like a statute of limitations on these deals? I also wonder how Lane Beardon's leg is doing these days, and if he has any regrets over punting with a torn ACL.
I think Lane's injury was a MCL and he was told by the team doctors that the damage was done and couldn't hurt it any more? That it was up to him if he wanted to try to continue to play.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
My question is what about people like Prothro and that kid from VT I believe from 2 years ago that kept getting concussions so he had to quit. They both laid their bodies on the line and got nothing from college football except a schollarship. I do not think lawsuits are the answer, but something needs to be done about the system.
I have a lot of respect and sympathy for Prothro. I think he got married not that long ago to, so congrats to him. But as much I think that situation could have been handled better (playing him in a blowout unnecessarily), he knew the risk when he took the field. That's why I don't think he'll sue anyone for his injury, because breaking your leg playing football is just something that can happen and everyone knows it.

I'm honestly not sure what the difference is with concussions. There doesn't seem to be, other than the fact society acts weird about certain things sometimes. So sometimes you get a payout while everyone else who did similar things and had similarly bad results get nothing.

I think now as a society we want to sue other people for the results of our choices and behavior. Who made anyone play football? The same goes for boxing, racing, extreme sports, any number of activities which might not end up being rewarding (though some people make millions) but still carry associated risks. Risk/reward, that's how it goes. People die doing rock climbing, no one sues the mountain do they? Honestly, I'm just tired of people suing when their choices lead to what happened. If someone misleads you, if someone lies to you, then I understand suing. But if you do something risky and it harms you? Welcome to the world of choices and consequences, life is full of them.

The one thing that I've argued probably should be done, is at a certain point these guys are projected for a pro career, some sort of plan to get them insurance in regards to potential future earnings is something I'd support. Beyond that though? No one is making them play football and football is very rewarding for many people.
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
I think your facts make the opposite point of your conclusion. If people knew 15 years ago, then so did schools. But schools did nothing about head injury until much much more recently. Honestly, I'd guess 10 years is the absolute outer limit where some students might be thought to have an inkling. Did anyone start talking about CTE until after 2006? I doubt it was something a significant percentage of the public had even heard of until 2009. The targeting rule hasn't been around that long.
I disagree. At some point people have to take responsibility for the risks that they knowingly choose to take. If the player knew of the risk and played, only in a situation where the player's safety was ignored by a school should be considered. But if the players are given proper equipment, taught proper techniques and pull off of the field when they are hurt, the school should be off the hook.
 

LA4Bama

All-SEC
Jan 5, 2015
1,624
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
My mom always told me football was dangerous. I thought just about everyone knew getting hit in the head did harm.

I honestly have trouble believing anyone played football without understanding there can be a risk associated. This isn't to discount those that were injured, but who are boxers going to sue?

To me the only time they should really have grounds to sue would be in two scenarios. The first is in which players were pushed to play despite injuries, when they wanted to and should have been resting and healing instead. The other is in which football players were deliberately mislead in terms of the risks. Outside of that? How is it any different than getting on a motorcycle? Anyone with a lick of common sense had to understand there's risk involved.
No. Your mom did not know repeat concussions could lead to degenerative neurological disorders long after the immediate effects of the concussion wore off. I've had occasion to note before how often you seem to "have trouble believing" something. You might want to get that checked.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
No. Your mom did not know repeat concussions could lead to degenerative neurological disorders long after the immediate effects of the concussion wore off. I've had occasion to note before how often you seem to "have trouble believing" something. You might want to get that checked.
Umm yes my mom was fully aware that getting hit in the head caused damage. You didn't have the conversations with her, I did. But, while some new things are being uncovered, common sense dictated getting hit in the head caused damage. I've had these discussions well before all this concussion data coming out, and anyone could take a look at a boxer and know that getting hit in the head over and over did a lot of damage.

Now, what you are talking about in terms of very specific types of damage being linked to a specific thing, yes that particular bit of information wasn't uncovered yet. But the overarching issue, getting hit in the head, was well known. Anyway, I ask you to not speak about what my mother did and didn't know again. You didn't know her, you didn't speak with her, and if you want to turn this into the quarterback discussion again you're out of line.
 

LA4Bama

All-SEC
Jan 5, 2015
1,624
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
I disagree. At some point people have to take responsibility for the risks that they knowingly choose to take. If the player knew of the risk and played, only in a situation where the player's safety was ignored by a school should be considered. But if the players are given proper equipment, taught proper techniques and pull off of the field when they are hurt, the school should be off the hook.
My main point is that the time frame you offered, 10-15 years seems off to me. The NFL was in denial about this until about 5 years ago, and they are just now starting to realize the scope of the problem. No way a college student could know. Now, whether that translates into a successful lawsuit is another issue, but we should not assume that they knew the risks. I suspect that will be the main issue for the lawsuit to determine. However, if as you said, the information has been out there for 15 years, then I think the schools are actually in worse trouble, legally speaking... because they sure didn't do much about it until the last couple of years.

BTW, I think our society is far too litigious, and I'm not necessarily favoring a side in this issue.
 

LA4Bama

All-SEC
Jan 5, 2015
1,624
0
0
Los Angeles, CA
Umm yes my mom was fully aware that getting hit in the head caused damage. You didn't have the conversations with her, I did. But, while some new things are being uncovered, common sense dictated getting hit in the head caused damage. I've had these discussions well before all this concussion data coming out, and anyone could take a look at a boxer and know that getting hit in the head over and over did a lot of damage.

Now, what you are talking about in terms of very specific types of damage being linked to a specific thing, yes that particular bit of information wasn't uncovered yet. But the overarching issue, getting hit in the head, was well known. Anyway, I kindly want you to not speak about what my mother did and didn't know again. You didn't know her, you didn't speak with her, and if you want to turn this into the quarterback discussion again you're out of line.
:rolleyes:
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,594
5,067
287
Here's the New York Times account of Beardon playing with a torn ACL:

The punter staggered off the field, limping badly and grimacing, like a wounded animal trying to get out of the road after being clipped by a pickup. By the time Lane Bearden got to the sideline, about five seconds after the play was over, he was in excruciating pain -- as would anybody kicking a football with a torn anterior cruciate ligament in his right knee.

The Alabama coach, Dennis Franchione, gave him a Warrior Ball that Saturday against Ole Miss, ''the most prized award in our program, the only one I've given this year,'' he said. ''In 30 years, I've never seen anyone come back from an anterior cruciate tear in the same season.''
Fran forgot to add "And I just really wanted that Texas A&M job, and I needed a good win record at Bama for me to get it."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/31/s...arden-plays-in-pain-should-he-be-playing.html
 

B1GTide

TideFans Legend
Apr 13, 2012
45,499
46,842
187
My main point is that the time frame you offered, 10-15 years seems off to me. The NFL was in denial about this until about 5 years ago, and they are just now starting to realize the scope of the problem. No way a college student could know. Now, whether that translates into a successful lawsuit is another issue, but we should not assume that they knew the risks. I suspect that will be the main issue for the lawsuit to determine. However, if as you said, the information has been out there for 15 years, then I think the schools are actually in worse trouble, legally speaking... because they sure didn't do much about it until the last couple of years.

BTW, I think our society is far too litigious, and I'm not necessarily favoring a side in this issue.
I agree about the NFL - they have clearly tried to hide the facts. College football is under attack here, though.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.