When will Riddell just stop making helmets? Why would anyone new even try?

#2
#2
God, I would love to kick every member on that jury in the balls, but they clearly have none.

WTF is it Riddell's responsibility to warn football players that there's a risk of concussion related injury when you play a sport that involves ramming your skull against those of your competition???

Riddell is simply supplying equipment. They are playing a sport, and if anything, it would be the responsibility of the organizers of the sport league to inform you of any risks involved.
 
#3
#3
Thrasher865 said:
God, I would love to kick every member on that jury in the balls, but they clearly have none.

WTF is it Riddell's responsibility to warn football players that there's a risk of concussion related injury when you play a sport that involves ramming your skull against those of your competition???

Riddell is simply supplying equipment. They are playing a sport, and if anything, it would be the responsibility of the organizers of the sport league to inform you of any risks involved.
Click to expand...

I agree. It just seems to go with how things are going all over the place in that nobody wants to take personal responsibility for anything anymore and it's always someone else's fault. It's sad.
 
#4
#4
Thrasher865 said:
God, I would love to kick every member on that jury in the balls, but they clearly have none.

WTF is it Riddell's responsibility to warn football players that there's a risk of concussion related injury when you play a sport that involves ramming your skull against those of your competition???

Riddell is simply supplying equipment. They are playing a sport, and if anything, it would be the responsibility of the organizers of the sport league to inform you of any risks involved.
Click to expand...

Under tort law products can be defective in a number of ways. One of those is improper of insufficient labeling or instruction. I suppose in this instance that might have been part of the plaintiff's claim.

To the OP, you can state the same about a number of products:

"When will Philip Morris just stop making cigarettes?"

"When will GM just stop making cars?"

"When will Anheuser-Busch just stop making beer?"

At this point there is still money to be made by the manufactures.




I also find it funny when people get up in arms about people filing these sorts of lawsuits. I would love to see how many of the sort of people who are upset by the plaintiff's receiving compensation would turn down the money if they were in the same situation. I imagine that hardly any would turn down the opportunity for compensation. Such piousness keeps lawyers vilified and in demand.
 
Last edited:
#5
#5
Blame the lawyers (and the law)... always going after the deeper pockets whether they have primary responsibility or not.

The family's lawyer, Frank Azar, will reportedly seek all $11.5 million from Riddell in a judge's ruling.
Click to expand...
 
#6
#6
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Blame the lawyers (and the law)... always going after the deeper pockets whether they have primary responsibility or not.
Click to expand...

Right, because the family wants to receive less money and they have nothing to gain from seeking the larger amount.


I am not saying these families or lawyers are right. But people need to step down from their pedestals be honest with themselves when they comment on these lawsuits.
 
#7
#7
Nerd-Vol said:
Under tort law products can be defective in a number of ways. One of those is improper of insufficient labeling or instruction. I suppose in this instance that might have been part of the plaintiff's claim.

To the OP, you can state the same about a number of products:

"When will Philip Morris just stop making cigarettes?"

"When will GM just stop making cars?"

"When will Anheuser-Busch just stop making beer?"

At this point there is still money to be made by the manufactures.




I also find it funny when people get up in arms about people filing these sorts of lawsuits. I would love to see how many of the sort of people who are upset by the plaintiff's receiving compensation would turn down the money if they were in the same situation. I imagine that hardly any would turn down the opportunity for compensation. Such piousness keeps lawyers vilified and in demand.
Click to expand...

This thread was about Riddell. I could care less about the questions you pose.

There's inherent risk when playing football, no?
 
#8
#8
Nerd-Vol said:
Right, because the family wants to receive less money and they have nothing to gain from seeking the larger amount.


I am not saying these families or lawyers are right. But people need to step down from their pedestals be honest with themselves when they comment on these lawsuits.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Like, read what you've posted in here. You telling people to get off their pedestal is hilarious and quite ironic.
 
#9
#9
it's like manufactureres of peanuts being forced to say their product may contain peanuts or plastic bags adding a warning not to put them on your head. They determined the helmet was not defective yet awarded money anyways. Sat through the jury selection process a little while ago and I would have little faith in them deciding my fate. Stupid people = stupid results

Nerd-Vol said:
I would love to see how many of the sort of people who are upset by the plaintiff's receiving compensation would turn down the money if they were in the same situation.
Click to expand...

Nerd-Vol said:
I imagine that hardly any would turn down the opportunity for compensation. Such piousness keeps lawyers vilified and in demand.
Click to expand...

2 completely different ideas
 
#11
#11
utvolpj said:
it's like manufactureres of peanuts being forced to say their product may contain peanuts or plastic bags adding a warning not to put them on your head. They determined the helmet was not defective yet awarded money anyways. Sat through the jury selection process a little while ago and I would have little faith in them deciding my fate. Stupid people = stupid results





2 completely different ideas
Click to expand...

Yes, the actual product may not be in itself defective, but the improper or insufficient labeling can amount to a defect.
 
#15
#15
Question for you Nerd-Vol...

Who, if anyone, do you think is primarily responsible for the player's brain damage and paralyzation?
 
#18
#18
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Question for you Nerd-Vol...

Who, if anyone, do you think is primarily responsible for the player's brain damage and paralyzation?
Click to expand...

Likely a number of parties.

It would be difficult to assign liability in these cases. I would say the player himself would be partially liable. The coach could be partially liable depending on if he was negligent if his actions lead to the injury. The helmet manufacture if there was nothing really stating what the helmet is designed to do and what it's limitations are.

As I type that, I don't necessarily like any of that, but I could imagine a jury considering those parties when they think about who may be liable.
 
#19
#19
VOLinthaNATI said:
Neither of these are about the products being defective.

Cigerettes causing cancer are not the result of defective cigerettes. Lol.
Click to expand...

As I have stated several times, defects in tort law not only applies to the product itself but its labeling.
 
#20
#20
Nerd-Vol said:
Under tort law products can be defective in a number of ways. One of those is improper of insufficient labeling or instruction. I suppose in this instance that might have been part of the plaintiff's claim.
Click to expand...

I don't know as much about this as you, I'm sure, but wouldn't that only be in a case where the label is warning about misuse of a product? Like if an ATV has a label saying "do not use on grades steeper than X%?"

There was no misuse of the product here, just a freak accident in which the product performed as designed, but it wasn't enough.

I would never expect to see a warning label on a rock climbing harness that says, "WARNING: If you fall off a rock, you could hurt yourself."

Nerd-Vol said:
I also find it funny when people get up in arms about people filing these sorts of lawsuits. I would love to see how many of the sort of people who are upset by the plaintiff's receiving compensation would turn down the money if they were in the same situation. I imagine that hardly any would turn down the opportunity for compensation. Such piousness keeps lawyers vilified and in demand.
Click to expand...

Notice my outrage was directed at the jury. The case is dumb, but whatever. The decision is the truly moronic part.
 
#21
#21
Thrasher865 said:
I don't know as much about this as you, I'm sure, but wouldn't that only be in a case where the label is warning about misuse of a product? Like if an ATV has a label saying "do not use on grades steeper than X%?"

There was no misuse of the product here, just a freak accident in which the product performed as designed, but it wasn't enough.

I would never expect to see a warning label on a rock climbing harness that says, "WARNING: If you fall off a rock, you could hurt yourself."



Notice my outrage was directed at the jury. The case is dumb, but whatever. The decision is the truly moronic part.
Click to expand...

On your question, I can't give you a definitive answer on what is enough labeling in order to defend against a defect claim at the moment.

I understand your outrage towards the jury. However I imagine any potential jury members with your mindset would not have made it past voir dire.
 
#22
#22
Nerd-Vol said:
Likely a number of parties.

It would be difficult to assign liability in these cases. I would say the player himself would be partially liable. The coach could be partially liable depending on if he was negligent if his actions lead to the injury. The helmet manufacture if there was nothing really stating what the helmet is designed to do and what it's limitations are.

As I type that, I don't necessarily like any of that, but I could imagine a jury considering those parties when they think about who may be liable.
Click to expand...

I think you are getting at the issue at hand. Clearly the child and parents knew of the risks for concussions, etc. while playing football. And, if coaches were negligent by not taking him out of the game I agree they should be liable. I fail to see, however, how Riddell was found to be liable by the jury... other than they have the deepest pockets.

Looking at it another way... if a basketball player twists their ankle while playing or practicing should the mfr of the shoes be held liable?
 
#23
#23
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Looking at it another way... if a basketball player twists their ankle while playing or practicing should the mfr of the shoes be held liable?
Click to expand...

clearly defective if they did not warn the wearer. Damn I should have sued Adidas after I blew out my knee
 
#24
#24
IBlvNTmWrk said:
I think you are getting at the issue at hand. Clearly the child and parents knew of the risks for concussions, etc. while playing football. And, if coaches were negligent by not taking him out of the game I agree they should be liable. I fail to see, however, how Riddell was found to be liable by the jury... other than they have the deepest pockets.

Looking at it another way... if a basketball player twists their ankle while playing or practicing should the mfr of the shoes be held liable?
Click to expand...

I understand why people aren't happy with this outcome, because people want to see individuals take responsibility for their actions and their choices. However, I can understand how this case came up and how it was decided by the jury.

On your second part. If there was a defect in the manufacture of the actual shoe, there could be a potential claim in there. Would be hard to make a claim of a defect in labeling.
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
Nerd-Vol said:
I understand why people aren't happy with this outcome, because people want to see individuals take responsibility for their actions and their choices. However, I can understand how this case came up and how it was decided by the jury.
Click to expand...

:ermm:

So you think this is a legitimate case of mislabeling? How should the helmet have been labeled?

"WARNING: If you smash your head into things, there is a risk of concussion and neck injury, even if wearing a helmet."

You think they are 33% at fault for the damages? I didn't read what state this was tried in, or if it's a proportionate liability state, but I'm assuming that's how they came up with 33% of the damages.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top