In that case was there a defect in the helmet?^

In that case was there a defect in the helmet?^

 

Not sure, wasn't born yet. I want to say yes, but I will make an attempt to find out for sure.

Didn't read the article...but, found the one statement odd...that Riddell is 27% responsible. How do you come to that determination? I mean, why not 25% or 30%? Or 23.54%?

My memory is a little Foggy but I know the Bishop's sued Coach Yeagle from Beechwood and a helmet manufacturer in the 90s. I don't remember if it was Riddell or not and if this decision could mean anything in the old Beechwood case. Anyone?

Just came in from outside, the sky is not falling. Are head injuries serious? Of course they are. A jury also found McDonalds at fault for a thermal burn due to hot coffee. McDonalds is still serving coffee, albeit with a warning. When I was in high school we had a rash of head injuries from baseball, people said the game would change, kids wouldn't play because of the danger, parents were worried. Baseball is still being played.

 

"Concussion" is a hot topic right now, it's being blamed for everything from headache to scarlet fever. I'm not being insensitive. I have spoke with the resident concussion expert in my area and he feels the same way. He said during football season he say ten players a month for "concussion", about one in 20 had experienced a concussion.

 

Like Harry said, I have seen more concussions in basketball then in football over the years. What next? Basketball helmets?

Sorry everyone, I missed Clyde's thread on this and started another in the CI forum so I merged them both here.

There is only one warning label Americans abide by and thats "Dry Clean Only".

Someone has to pay...

 

Why? I guess I disagree with this whole sue happy state america is in now adays. Was the kid hurt because of negligence? Did someone break the law causing injury? I am no where close to being a lawyer, and as such am not qualified to say how this case will go. But it is getting very old to me with the sue everybody view we have in society today. I also agree with some of the things being stated above as to what will happen next. Dang, I just realized my folks should have sued Converse when my chucks came untied when I was running as a kid, I tripped on the shoestring and got a nasty boo-boo. We could have been rich as converse should never design shoes to come untied. Right?

Why? I guess I disagree with this whole sue happy state america is in now adays. Was the kid hurt because of negligence? Did someone break the law causing injury? I am no where close to being a lawyer, and as such am not qualified to say how this case will go. But it is getting very old to me with the sue everybody view we have in society today. I also agree with some of the things being stated above as to what will happen next. Dang, I just realized my folks should have sued Converse when my chucks came untied when I was running as a kid, I tripped on the shoestring and got a nasty boo-boo. We could have been rich as converse should never design shoes to come untied. Right?

 

I was being sarcastic. On top that, my comment is now a little out of context because Clyde started the thread, I didn't see it and started a similar thread and then once I caught up with Clyde (he is always so far ahead of me) I merged the threads thus putting my timing of comments in question.

 

I agree, this sue sue sue mentality is a slippery slope.

I was being sarcastic. On top that, my comment is now a little out of context because Clyde started the thread, I didn't see it and started a similar thread and then once I caught up with Clyde (he is always so far ahead of me) I merged the threads thus putting my timing of comments in question.

 

I agree, this sue sue sue mentality is a slippery slope.

 

Gotcha!

This is crap. Good lord lets turn into another soccer country already. Football is no more dangerous than alot of other activities kids do. The same parents who do not allow their children to play football should buy their kids slow cars, prevent them from riding four wheelers and dirt bikes, only allow their children to swim in shallow pools, and home school their children. All of which are more dangerous than playing a sport.

A-W-E-S-O-M-E

Product not faulty, yet they have to pay damages?

 

Guess parents aren't smart enough to know that hurling two 200+ lb boys at each other might result in injury?

I was party to a Federal Civil Case several years ago (The store I was a manager of was being sued) and according to our attorney if the jury found us less than 50% at fault we would not have to pay anything. Jury found that the majority of the incident was the fault of the plaintiff and we did not have to pay anything.

 

That said, the jury finding Riddell 27% at fault means that either the players actions or the actions of others make up the other 73%. Not sure how or why Riddell would have to pay. Maybe State and Federal Civil cases are different.

 

I'm sure some of our legal eagles can't straighten this out for us.

Next target may be mouth-piece makers.

 

Most of us know that the lack of mouth-piece during a collision with another player or the ground is where a lot of concussions come from.