RugbyRebels

I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:

Ben Robinson: IRFU and World Rugby named in rugby death legal case - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-37805716

Kid from Carrick who died after a match when he had a couple of blows to the head. I'm not going to criticise his parents but the lawyers seem to be casting the net unusually wide. Regardless, maybe some good will come of it in raising awareness and maybe even improving the approach to concussion.

Horrible thing for any parent to have to go through but WTF?

We all take a risk every time we step onto a rugby pitch, drive a car, fly in an airplane, etc - you name it. We can't go around suing every Tom, Dick and Harry that is even slightly related to these events every time something goes wrong.

I think that this must be some form of catharsis. I've seen it with parents of young soldiers killed on operations, even seen it with the parents of soldiers who've committed suicide. I don't imagine there is a sum of treasure on earth that is enough to compensate for the loss of a child under any circumstances, but finding something or someone to blame other than the miserable throes of Fate must serve as some consolation.

I can't help but sympathise with grieving parents, but there ought to be some forms of legal protections that prevent such shot-gun cases unless there is evidence of culpable negligence. Having said that, there may actually be such evidence in this case.

So where's their responsibility end when allowing their child to participate?

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:I think that this must be some form of catharsis. I've seen it with parents of young soldiers killed on operations, even seen it with the parents of soldiers who've committed suicide. I don't imagine there is a sum of treasure on earth that is enough to compensate for the loss of a child under any circumstances, but finding something or someone to blame other than the miserable throes of Fate must serve as some consolation.

I can't help but sympathise with grieving parents, but there ought to be some forms of legal protections that prevent such shot-gun cases unless there is evidence of culpable negligence. Having said that, there may actually be such evidence in this case.

Children are very cheap to kill, damages-wise, so there won't be any treasure and they'll know that.

Not my area of law, but as I understand it, if there were no reasonable cause of action then you could have the claim struck out. Here you can see the logic behind the claim: the governing bodies have a duty of care to players; players can die from second impacts; players and their parents haven't been sufficiently warned about these risks so the duty hasn't been discharged. I'm not saying I agree - I don't - but I can see the argument.

OptimisticJock wrote:So where's their responsibility end when allowing their child to participate?

Or even the childs desire to participate.
That's not me being facetious, I know it's not legally pertinent but in the 70's school were forcing us to play even with injuries.
I know it's better now.

the dad lives near me now and was quite involved in the Scottish anti concussion movement.

This may well be to force certain bodies and the wider community to make sure it never happens again.