He will play if he thinks he can play without letting down the team, that will be the only consideration.
And for all of you bush lawyers, if he has taken appropriate medical advice and that medical advice was that he should not play, and he makes a considered decision to play and suffers injury within the scope of the medical advice he was provided, he will find it very, very difficult to maintain any sort of action against any of the doctors.
Re the club as his employer, once again, if they place no pressure on him, they discuss all the pros and cons with him and warn him that he should not play and he makes a considered decision to play, he will also have difficulties succeeding against the club.
He will have voluntarily assumed the risk of any injury occurring in those circumstances.
The Civil Liability Act in Qld includes this little gem:-
14 Persons suffering harm presumed to be aware of obvious
risks
(1) If, in an action for damages for breach of duty causing harm, a
defence of voluntary assumption of risk is raised by the
defendant and the risk is an obvious risk, the plaintiff is taken
to have been aware of the risk unless the plaintiff proves, on
the balance of probabilities, that he or she was not aware of
the risk.
(2) For this section, a person is aware of a risk if the person is
aware of the type or kind of risk, even if the person is not
aware of the precise nature, extent or manner of occurrence of
the risk.
Re your suggestion Loudy, the NRL would have no power or jurisdiction to interfere (in my view) in a decision made between the player and the club, and a representative from the NRL has come out and said as much. How could they rule him out without any medical evidence, and where do they have the power to have him medically examined? Different scenario whent it comes time for medicals for the australian side.
