Alex McKinnon possibly Quadriplegic - Mclean guilty of dangerous throw - 7 weeks

[madunit]

Surely modern NRL contracts would demand that a player abstains from suing anyone in the case of a career ending injury, otherwise the game would never have survived this long on good will alone from players.

If he wants to sue, good on him.

However, he has engaged in an activity that has caused his type of injury before, has had careers ended, still has dangerous tackles etc.

He signed contracts where he agreed to play this game which in my mind, would mean he has little hope of getting a massive apyout, especially after the donations and job that the NRL has provided him immediately after the injury.

In what way can he claim that the Storm or the NRL were negligent?

Rules were tightened against spear tackles and high tackles etc before McKinnon was born, yet they still happened.

They tightened rules after his injury, yet the incidents still happen.

Financially I don't see it as being that intelligent either.

Even if the NRL gig paid him 50k a year until he retired at 67, he'd earn more with the job, than in the 1.1 million dollar payout. He surely couldn't imagine that he could sue the NRL and they'd allow him to remain employed for life as well.

I'm not really fussed what happens and I won't be hating him if he decides to sue.

 

[Canard]

How where either of the parties negligent? Surely the only opportunity is the player who did it?
B) the NRL knew the potential risk of injury and did nothing to reduce that risk to a reasonable level.

Im no law talking guy but what about not having insurance in place to deal with such issues?

But just based on the precedent of other players like Steve Rogers and Jarrod McCracken taking legal action, I'm certain that narrow field you created isn't the only options available to them.

 

[Canard]

Surely modern NRL contracts would demand that a player abstains from suing anyone in the case of a career ending injury,

Wouldn't that be completely without legal basis?

Just like most "disclaimers" that people sign are?

 

[madunit]

Im no law talking guy but what about not having insurance in place to deal with such issues?

But just based on the precedent of other players like Steve Rogers and Jarrod McCracken taking legal action, I'm certain that narrow field you created isn't the only options available to them.

Surely that's an issue worth taking up with the RLPA, given that the NRL gave them full authority to act on the players behalf.

If players aren't insured, then why didn't the RLPA do something about that. What is their purpose if they can't even get the players insured after all these years?

 

[Canard]

Surely that's an issue worth taking up with the RLPA, given that the NRL gave them full authority to act on the players behalf.

If players aren't insured, then why didn't the RLPA do something about that. What is their purpose if they can't even get the players insured after all these years?

?? Got hurt at work.

Sue the Union??

Not sure Im following you there mate.

 

[Perth Red]

McCraken sued the player didn't he? re Insurance if there is no legal requirement for them to have it (not sure how workers comp insurance works in the NRL?) then you cant blame them for being negligent for not having it. In fact the NRL lawyers would have a field day showing how the NRL has gone way above and beyond its legal obligations by raising money and offering him a life job. There's not many employers who would do that for an injured staff member!

I don't blame him for trying, if it was me I would be. Setting himself up for life for treatment and adaptations/technology is what anyone would do in similar situation I guess.

 

[madunit]

Wouldn't that be completely without legal basis?

Just like most "disclaimers" that people sign are?

It's purely an assumption on my part, based on how many players have suffered injuries that ended their careers yet who never sued the game or their club.

Made me think that such a thing must be written into contracts preventing them from suing

 

[madunit]

?? Got hurt at work.

Sue the Union??

Not sure Im following you there mate.

I'm not saying Sue the RLPA.

I'm saying that the RLPA should take responsibility for not have players insured, as the NRL handed all player related welfare issues over to the RLPA.

It's a get out clause for the NRL, as they agreed to give that full authority to a Union.

It's up to the Union to make demands to the NRL about what it's members want.

 

[Perth Red]

No you can not sign off legal entitlement. If the employer is negligent then regardless of any contract you are entitled to take action. Not an expert but I am a snr manager and deal with workers comp/negligence claims in our organisation from time to time.

 

[Canard]

I'm not saying Sue the RLPA.

I'm saying that the RLPA should take responsibility for not have players insured, as the NRL handed all player related welfare issues over to the RLPA.

It's a get out clause for the NRL, as they agreed to give that full authority to a Union.

It's up to the Union to make demands to the NRL about what it's members want.

Yeh that's not going to fly.

What I really want to know, is why do people want to twist themselves in knots to come up with reasons why a disabled person shouldn't explore every avenue to make their life better??

 

[madunit]

No you can not sign off legal entitlement. If the employer is negligent then regardless of any contract you are entitled to take action. Not an expert but I am a snr manager and deal with workers comp/negligence claims in our organisation from time to time.

What about in workplaces where there is an inherently massive risk of injury etc?

Surely that would at least weaken your claims.

 

[Bazal]

Surely it's no different to a construction worker suing because a beam fell on him...most workers get a payout of sorts if injured severely at work, it doesn't mean the payout suits the injury and the change in lifestyle it causes and it doesn't take into account future changes in condition. Liability does not necessarily equate to blame.

The kid can't walk ffs, how far do you expect 1.1 mill to go in this day and age?

 

[madunit]

Surely it's no different to a construction worker suing because a beam fell on him...most workers get a payout of sorts if injured severely at work, it doesn't mean the payout suits the injury and the change in lifestyle it causes and it doesn't take into account future changes in condition. Liability does not necessarily equate to blame.

The kid can't walk ffs, how far do you expect 1.1 mill to go in this day and age?

1.1 million isn't much.

But it's less than earning 50k a year over 40 years (that's if he earns that salary in the job for life, which I'm sure he's probably going to earn more than)

 

[eozsmiles]

My question isn't whether. Alex should sue or not, but what responsibility the game has towards him once the court case was finished? If Alex wins, it would be fair to say that the court has decided what his compensation should be and that he requires nothing more. Certainly those who get sued will have no further obligation financially.

Alex has every right to do as he feels and I won't judge him because it doesn't impact me and I've never been in his shoes. However the NRL and Knights and Men Of League have all basically said "We'll support you, job for life etc". If it goes to court and the judge says Alex should receive a decent sum (millions I'd assume?) then those parties that have pledged support would likely say that the court has put a definitive value on how much financial support is required and deserved.

I assume and hope that all these parties will be there to support Alex emotionally for the long run. But if he gets compensated financially by a court, it is reasonable and probably expected for the NRL etc to feel they don't have a responsibility to employ him or raise further funds for him.

 

[Mong]

What about in workplaces where there is an inherently massive risk of injury etc?

Surely that would at least weaken your claims.

They have to have a safe system of work within that workplace.

If they don't and an injury that was reasonably foreseeable results, it doesn't really matter that the workplace it's self is dangerous.

 

[eozsmiles]

1.1 million isn't much.

But it's less than earning 50k a year over 40 years (that's if he earns that salary in the job for life, which I'm sure he's probably going to earn more than)

One of the reasons he is entertaining court action would likely be because the "job for life" line is a pretty loose one. Is it 20 years part time @ $20 an hour or 50 years @ $100k? I don't know if they have anything in writing or if he even has a job description. I'm guessing the Knights have said "come in when you feel ok, do your best, we'll look after you". Makes it hard to get sacked or promoted.

He no doubt wants some clarity about his future. Maybe a good sit down with the knights chairman or Gidley, Dave smith, and the men of league could nip this whole thing in the bud before too long.

It might sound like a million to one chance, but the knights and NRL might not be around forever anyway.

Ps I'd say the $1.1 million is pretty much gone. He'd have a house (asset) and renovated it for his lifestyle, bought a special vehicle, and have mounting medical and rehab bills. Anything that is left over is already spent, if you know what I mean.

 

[Nice Beaver]

I'd love to hear the RLPA's view point on insurance cover for players.

A typical life insurer is not going to cover players for TPD or Income Protection but there are specialist insurers out there that will cover professional sports people.

The premiums are a LOT higher, but so are the stakes and their incomes I guess.

I have NO idea if there is cover already in place, but I am guessing not if it is in fact true that he is weighing up court action. I would think that if insurances were in place he would be OK financially, which would lead you to the conclusion there are no insurances in place.

If not, why the hell not??

 

[canberra_raiders2k2]

I'd assume that they are self insured. I doubt they have zero insurance.

 

[Nice Beaver]

I'd assume that they are self insured. I doubt they have zero insurance.

Then once again, why the need to take court action?

If there is insurance in place then he should be sufficiently covered for future expenses which I am sure is the only reason he would be thinking of such a course......

I am not having a go at the bloke at all for what he is contemplating, just thinking out loud what would seem to be a big issue for all players going forward.

 

[papabear]

Yeh that's not going to fly.

What I really want to know, is why do people want to twist themselves in knots to come up with reasons why a disabled person shouldn't explore every avenue to make their life better??

I think the disabled person should explore every avenue.

But on the same token shouldn't the organisation he is looking to sue also explore every avenue?