01-18-2019, 05:08 AM
OK, I read the full OTL story re: insurance and contact sports, and it focus on football in particular. It’s quite eye-opening and paints a potentially grim picture.
I think the best way to characterize the seriousness of what is going on, is that some people believe virtually all youth contact team sports could be at risk in the future. Football, hockey, soccer, and water polo are all mentioned in the story.
What is a bit confusing to me is how do sports like racing and the “extreme sports” avoid this insurance coverage crisis? It seems the answer might be the sheer volume of former athletes who have played contact sports in the past without adequate safety standards, who might be threats to file lawsuits at some point in the future.
While having injury lawyers be a force to improve safety is a good thing, it seems a bit over the top to have everyone be able to sue sports entities because someone who played sports eventually acquired a brain malady. If you could make a case that without sports there would be no brain disease, maybe it makes sense, but even then, not everyone who plays contact sports will be so damaged. So you put sports at risk that provide much more good than bad in terms of teaching life skills, so everyone can avoid possible future brain problems and all lawsuits, when many of those who would sue would have those brain problems later in life anyway even without playing contact sports?
Everything carries some risk. I question if the human desire to eliminate it is misplaced, and if it makes more sense to just accept your situation without blaming and trying to have others pay for your misfortune, especially in situations where there is no clear and certain cause/effect. I mean there is a big difference between being injured as a result of provable negligence in the case of many cases of companies willingly cutting safety or knowingly putting something on market that causes harm, like say the Ford Pinto situation, where people are put at risk for a profit motive, and youth sports organizations just providing sports opportunities for kids. Right?
Perhaps there is some legislative solution to this that puts a statute of limitations on bring lawsuits for injuries caused by playing sports. This would ostensibly allow only the most serious cases to be litigated, that might well be a product of negligence. Then insurance companies would have less risk and give the sports operations more money for safety equipment and better trained coaches, etc.
Not everyone can be 100% protected and not everyone can blame others for their misfortune, but there probably is some middle ground we can agree on as a society that allows maybe not a perfect solution but one good enough to preserve youth contact sports for future generations.
I think the best way to characterize the seriousness of what is going on, is that some people believe virtually all youth contact team sports could be at risk in the future. Football, hockey, soccer, and water polo are all mentioned in the story.
What is a bit confusing to me is how do sports like racing and the “extreme sports” avoid this insurance coverage crisis? It seems the answer might be the sheer volume of former athletes who have played contact sports in the past without adequate safety standards, who might be threats to file lawsuits at some point in the future.
While having injury lawyers be a force to improve safety is a good thing, it seems a bit over the top to have everyone be able to sue sports entities because someone who played sports eventually acquired a brain malady. If you could make a case that without sports there would be no brain disease, maybe it makes sense, but even then, not everyone who plays contact sports will be so damaged. So you put sports at risk that provide much more good than bad in terms of teaching life skills, so everyone can avoid possible future brain problems and all lawsuits, when many of those who would sue would have those brain problems later in life anyway even without playing contact sports?
Everything carries some risk. I question if the human desire to eliminate it is misplaced, and if it makes more sense to just accept your situation without blaming and trying to have others pay for your misfortune, especially in situations where there is no clear and certain cause/effect. I mean there is a big difference between being injured as a result of provable negligence in the case of many cases of companies willingly cutting safety or knowingly putting something on market that causes harm, like say the Ford Pinto situation, where people are put at risk for a profit motive, and youth sports organizations just providing sports opportunities for kids. Right?
Perhaps there is some legislative solution to this that puts a statute of limitations on bring lawsuits for injuries caused by playing sports. This would ostensibly allow only the most serious cases to be litigated, that might well be a product of negligence. Then insurance companies would have less risk and give the sports operations more money for safety equipment and better trained coaches, etc.
Not everyone can be 100% protected and not everyone can blame others for their misfortune, but there probably is some middle ground we can agree on as a society that allows maybe not a perfect solution but one good enough to preserve youth contact sports for future generations.