Tag Archives: assumption of risk
The Canadian media outlet TSN has reported that the attorney representing Derek Boogaard has asked for an extension in his client’s concussion lawsuit against the National Hockey League because he wants to “introduce new evidence that he says will further prove that the league is responsible for Boogaard’s death.”
TSN reported that lawyer Bill Gibbs wrote the letter on Aug. 4, 2015, Bill Gibbs, writing that “as document production and deposition testimony has developed in the NHL Concussion (case), (Boogaard’s) counsel has unearthed relevant … evidence related to the NHL’s duty to its players that was not previously available.”
He added that the “documents and testimony shed light on the NHL’s assumed responsibility for making the game safe for its players and its ability to act unilaterally to eliminate dangerous elements of professional hockey, However, I am barred from disclosing the identity of, or the contents of, these documents…”
For the full article, visit:
(Editor’s note: When the July issue of Concussion Litigation Reporter hits on Monday, the following case summary, summarized here, will be featured in its totality.)
A state court has delivered a small victory to a former high school field hockey player, who sued her coach and the school after the defendants allegedly mishandled a concussion she suffered, leading to multiple concussions.
Specifically, the court denied the defendants’ motion for judgment , which was premised on their argument that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury.
The incidents leading to the litigation occurred several years ago when the plaintiff was a high school junior and a member of the school’s varsity field hockey team. The other defendant was the head coach, a paid employee of the school.
The plaintiff was competing in a game when she was hit in the head by a field hockey ball and suffered a head injury and/or a concussion. The coach, allegedly,did not attempt to determine whether she had suffered a concussion or other injury and did not remove her from the game. At no time during or after the game did he ask her if she had any symptoms related to the head injury or communicate the nature of the injury to her parents, the school’s athletic director or school nurse, or any medical professional, according to the complaint.
To subscribe and read the summary in its entirety on Monday, visit https://concussionpolicyandthelaw.com/subscribe/
(Editor’s Note: What follows is a brief synopsis of one of several case summaries in Concussion Litigation Alert. For details on this summary and others, please subscribe at https://concussionpolicyandthelaw.com/subscribe/)
A state appeals court affirmed a lower court’s ruling, dismissing the claim of a cheerleader, who suffered a concussion and then sued the school district for negligence. The doctrine of assumption of risk figured prominently in the decision.
The plaintiff Rachel started cheering in the eighth grade. That summer, prior to her ninth grade year, she decided that she wanted to try out for the cheerleading team. The court noted that the plaintiff participated in a camp in the summer of 2010, during which they practiced stunts and were allegedly warned of the dangers of stunts.
After school started, the cheerleading team practiced for about two and a half hours a day. The plaintiff was in the advanced stunting group, which was more experienced than the other groups. The team practiced stunts from mid-September 2010 to October 20, 2010- the day that the plaintiff sustained injuries while positioned as a base. The flyer came down too far to the right and fell on the plaintiff. Her elbow hit her between the eyes, causing a concussion.
The plaintiff filed a complaint against Linfield that included a first cause of action for negligence entitled Negligence/Recklessness, a second cause of action for promissory fraud, and a third cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.
The school countered with a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, on the grounds that ….