Introduction In 2013, ten former hockey players filed a class action lawsuit against the National Hockey League and the National Hockey League Board of Governors stating various complaints. The former hockey players will herein be identified as participants or Plaintiffs and the National Hockey League and Board of Governors will be identified as NHL, service providers, or Defendants. Focus will be placed on the allegations of negligence against the governing body, the NHL. Negligence is considered the unintentional tort that causes injury to a person in the form of physical injury, property loss or reputation (Cotten & Wolohan, 2013). The complaints include breach of duty because the NHL allegedly fell short on their responsibility to
…show more content…
There isn’t a need for an argument against the inherent relationship with the Plaintiffs because it is understood the moment players were hired to the team. However, there is argument against liability being proven under breach of duty, protecting the players from danger. The burden of proof lies in proving the NHL was proactive in its duty. Plaintiffs believe the NHL was aware of or should have been aware of the dangers of concussive injuries, and therefore took the deliberate action of choosing to ignore those risks. The NHL was proactive in addressing the dangers of concussions by creating the Concussion Board. Studies showed player concussion rates decreased from 7.7 per 100 players in 2000-2001 to 4.9 per 100 in 2003-2004 (Benson, et al., 2011). Players understood the inherent risks, potential for concussions from being on the ice, player collisions and body checks, associated with hockey play and therefore chose to increase their risks through aggressive play. Eliminating physical contact and the inherent risks within the game would alter the nature of the sport. Players and their chosen representatives have access to medical information involving concussions, therefore they have an assumption of risk. Just as players have the capabilities to read published medical reports to stay on top of their industry’s topics, they also have the responsibility to report …show more content…
A comprehensive approach to continual identification of and assessment of the risks as well as the proper implementation process could aid in minimizing litigations. Players, officials and management should be involved in establishing risk management policies. As rules are incorporated relating to the ice, body checks and other aggressive player contact, parties should agree to consistency in the language and penalties assessed to infractions. Because it is impractical to eliminate all risks, it is the responsibility of all parties to decrease occurrences by recognizing the
There isn’t a need for an argument against the inherent relationship with the Plaintiffs because it is understood the moment players were hired to the team. However, there is argument against liability being proven under breach of duty, protecting the players from danger. The burden of proof lies in proving the NHL was proactive in its duty. Plaintiffs believe the NHL was aware of or should have been aware of the dangers of concussive injuries, and therefore took the deliberate action of choosing to ignore those risks. The NHL was proactive in addressing the dangers of concussions by creating the Concussion Board. Studies showed player concussion rates decreased from 7.7 per 100 players in 2000-2001 to 4.9 per 100 in 2003-2004 (Benson, et al., 2011). Players understood the inherent risks, potential for concussions from being on the ice, player collisions and body checks, associated with hockey play and therefore chose to increase their risks through aggressive play. Eliminating physical contact and the inherent risks within the game would alter the nature of the sport. Players and their chosen representatives have access to medical information involving concussions, therefore they have an assumption of risk. Just as players have the capabilities to read published medical reports to stay on top of their industry’s topics, they also have the responsibility to report …show more content…
A comprehensive approach to continual identification of and assessment of the risks as well as the proper implementation process could aid in minimizing litigations. Players, officials and management should be involved in establishing risk management policies. As rules are incorporated relating to the ice, body checks and other aggressive player contact, parties should agree to consistency in the language and penalties assessed to infractions. Because it is impractical to eliminate all risks, it is the responsibility of all parties to decrease occurrences by recognizing the