To understand why the NHL will have to ban fighting one day, read this story

[bustaheims]

Can a stuntman sue a movie company if he gets injured? (I don't honestly know the answer to this).

That depends on how the stuntman gets injured. If the injuries occur from actions that reasonably fall within the job he agreed to do, then, no. If they occur from negligence or from being pushed into doing something they didn't initially agree to, then, yes.

 

[TML fan]

Who would be suing? The PA or the individual player or players with the grievance?

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

Can a stuntman sue a movie company if he gets injured? (I don't honestly know the answer to this).

That depends on how the stuntman gets injured. If the injuries occur from actions that reasonably fall within the job he agreed to do, then, no. If they occur from negligence or from being pushed into doing something they didn't initially agree to, then, yes.

"If the injuries occur from actions that reasonably fall within the job he agreed to do".

Isn't that the definition of what the players agree to in the NFL?

 

[Bill_Berg]

Isn't that what boxing is though? Asking people to do something that regularly gives them concussions? I don't see the difference between a boxer and a football player in that respect.

Who is a professional boxer's employer? Or, to frame it in the context of the question you ask, in regards to boxing who is doing the "asking"?

I don't know, whoever pays them? Isn't that just labeling who might get sued? The NHL/NFL or the boxing promoter? I don't know much about boxing and MMA. I suppose there isn't a league, but what's the difference? Unless the boxer is employing himself, and maybe that's it?

 

[Corn Flake]

Isn't that what boxing is though? Asking people to do something that regularly gives them concussions? I don't see the difference between a boxer and a football player in that respect.

Who is a professional boxer's employer? Or, to frame it in the context of the question you ask, in regards to boxing who is doing the "asking"?

I don't know, whoever pays them? Isn't that just labeling who might get sued? The NHL/NFL or the boxing promoter? I don't know much about boxing and MMA. I suppose there isn't a league, but what's the difference? Unless the boxer is employing himself, and maybe that's it?

They enter into a contract in one way or another with an organization who "hires" them for a fight (or more, depending on the relationship).  Hockey players do the same, effectively... no?

Neither are technically employees.

 

[Bill_Berg]

Isn't that what boxing is though? Asking people to do something that regularly gives them concussions? I don't see the difference between a boxer and a football player in that respect.

Who is a professional boxer's employer? Or, to frame it in the context of the question you ask, in regards to boxing who is doing the "asking"?

I don't know, whoever pays them? Isn't that just labeling who might get sued? The NHL/NFL or the boxing promoter? I don't know much about boxing and MMA. I suppose there isn't a league, but what's the difference? Unless the boxer is employing himself, and maybe that's it?

They enter into a contract in one way or another with an organization who "hires" them for a fight (or more, depending on the relationship).  Hockey players do the same, effectively... no?

Neither are technically employees.

That's what I would think. Then what's the difference between a boxer and a hockey player, or a football player? Why can't boxers sue and win?

 

[Kin]

I don't know, whoever pays them? Isn't that just labeling who might get sued? The NHL/NFL or the boxing promoter? I don't know much about boxing and MMA. I suppose there isn't a league, but what's the difference? Unless the boxer is employing himself, and maybe that's it?

Well, yeah. Boxers don't have an employer/employee relationship wherein they're the employee. A fight having a promoter isn't the same thing as being an employee of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

 

[Kin]

They enter into a contract in one way or another with an organization who "hires" them for a fight (or more, depending on the relationship).  Hockey players do the same, effectively... no?

No. I mean, not to get too technical or anything but when it comes to contract law the specifics of "one way or another" tend to be pretty important.

 

[Bill_Berg]

I don't know, whoever pays them? Isn't that just labeling who might get sued? The NHL/NFL or the boxing promoter? I don't know much about boxing and MMA. I suppose there isn't a league, but what's the difference? Unless the boxer is employing himself, and maybe that's it?

Well, yeah. Boxers don't have an employer/employee relationship wherein they're the employee. A fight having a promoter isn't the same thing as being an employee of the Toronto Maple Leafs.

So then the difference between a boxer and a hockey/football player is labour law? A boxer is allowed to destroy his brain for profit but a hockey player isn't because the former isn't an 'employee' and the latter is?

 

[Kin]

So then the difference between a boxer and a hockey/football player is labour law? A boxer is allowed to destroy his brain for profit but a hockey player isn't because the former isn't an 'employee' and the latter is?

Well, not to cut your point off or anything but right now hockey players are allowed to play hockey too so there's not quite the stark divide you're presenting. The role of the NHL, and its lack of counterpart in the world of boxing, is only relevant in the sense that it would be pretty difficult for the NHL to argue that they're not employers and therefore not subject to labour law. What responsibilities that means the NHL has in regards to it's current, future and former players isn't settled either.

 

[Bill_Berg]

So then the difference between a boxer and a hockey/football player is labour law? A boxer is allowed to destroy his brain for profit but a hockey player isn't because the former isn't an 'employee' and the latter is?

Well, not to cut your point off or anything but right now hockey players are allowed to play hockey too so there's not quite the stark divide you're presenting. The role of the NHL, and its lack of counterpart in the world of boxing, is only relevant in the sense that it would be pretty difficult for the NHL to argue that they're not employers and therefore not subject to labour law. What responsibilities that means the NHL has in regards to it's current, future and former players isn't settled either.

Yes, I jumped a number of steps ahead. But it was in reference to the topic's title, "the NHL will have to ban fighting one day". So I'm assuming it's because they would be sued and lose and therefore have to ban it to avoid going bankrupt and shutting down, or legal action would force them to do it.

It seems to me that if boxing and MMA can exist,the NHL won't be forced somehow, legally or economically, into banning fighting. They may be forced to prevent players from playing after fights or big hits and educate them on symptoms and such, but if the NHL wants to keep fighting, I don't see it going away.

 

[bustaheims]

"If the injuries occur from actions that reasonably fall within the job he agreed to do".

Isn't that the definition of what the players agree to in the NFL?

While I'm not going to claim to be well versed in either the specifics of the law or the lawsuit involving the NFL, my understanding is that the players were arguing that the league was aware of the potential for serious brain injury and did not provide enough protection against it, which, I believe, would fall under the rather nebulous area that is negligence. Part of the duties of an employer is to create as safe a working condition as possible.

 

[ZBBM]

So then the difference between a boxer and a hockey/football player is labour law? A boxer is allowed to destroy his brain for profit but a hockey player isn't because the former isn't an 'employee' and the latter is?

Well, not to cut your point off or anything but right now hockey players are allowed to play hockey too so there's not quite the stark divide you're presenting. The role of the NHL, and its lack of counterpart in the world of boxing, is only relevant in the sense that it would be pretty difficult for the NHL to argue that they're not employers and therefore not subject to labour law. What responsibilities that means the NHL has in regards to it's current, future and former players isn't settled either.

Yes, I jumped a number of steps ahead. But it was in reference to the topic's title, "the NHL will have to ban fighting one day". So I'm assuming it's because they would be sued and lose and therefore have to ban it to avoid going bankrupt and shutting down, or legal action would force them to do it.

It seems to me that if boxing and MMA can exist,the NHL won't be forced somehow, legally or economically, into banning fighting. They may be forced to prevent players from playing after fights or big hits and educate them on symptoms and such, but if the NHL wants to keep fighting, I don't see it going away.

It would be good to have somebody well versed in labor law chime in, but what I'm contending is:

1.  Fighting is completely extraneous to the game of hockey, meaning that it (and, particularly, the head trauma associated with it) could be eliminated without affecting the basics of the sport.
2.  That being the case, the NHL could ban it without damaging the sport (or the prospects of people playing it).
3.  Fighting can and does result in concussions and long-term neurological damage to the players engaging in it.
4.  The NHL is aware of #3, therefore NOT banning fighting would be negligence on their part.
5.  As more and more stories like Wright's become known, potential jurors will be more likely to hold leagues responsible.
6.  A good lawyer representing a plaintiff will likely be able to make a successful negligence case to these now-better-informed jurors (i.e., the league's exposure is increasing).
7.  The NHL's lawyers will look at 1?6 and advise the league that to reduce its exposure it must ban fighting.
8.  The league will eventually agree.

The interesting discussion on here ? about how far "informed consent" can indemnify a sports league ? is where some good legal minds would be helpful.  I don't think you can indemnify yourself against negligence, but maybe I'm wrong.

The other interesting discussion is how all this plays out in cases where head trauma IS an integral part of the game, as it is in football.

 

[Bill_Berg]

So then the difference between a boxer and a hockey/football player is labour law? A boxer is allowed to destroy his brain for profit but a hockey player isn't because the former isn't an 'employee' and the latter is?

Well, not to cut your point off or anything but right now hockey players are allowed to play hockey too so there's not quite the stark divide you're presenting. The role of the NHL, and its lack of counterpart in the world of boxing, is only relevant in the sense that it would be pretty difficult for the NHL to argue that they're not employers and therefore not subject to labour law. What responsibilities that means the NHL has in regards to it's current, future and former players isn't settled either.

Yes, I jumped a number of steps ahead. But it was in reference to the topic's title, "the NHL will have to ban fighting one day". So I'm assuming it's because they would be sued and lose and therefore have to ban it to avoid going bankrupt and shutting down, or legal action would force them to do it.

It seems to me that if boxing and MMA can exist,the NHL won't be forced somehow, legally or economically, into banning fighting. They may be forced to prevent players from playing after fights or big hits and educate them on symptoms and such, but if the NHL wants to keep fighting, I don't see it going away.

It would be good to have somebody well versed in labor law chime in, but what I'm contending is:

1.  Fighting is completely extraneous to the game of hockey, meaning that it (and, particularly, the head trauma associated with it) could be eliminated without affecting the basics of the sport.
2.  That being the case, the NHL could ban it without damaging the sport (or the prospects of people playing it).
3.  Fighting can and does result in concussions and long-term neurological damage to the players engaging in it.
4.  The NHL is aware of #3, therefore NOT banning fighting would be negligence on their part.
5.  As more and more stories like Wright's become known, potential jurors will be more likely to hold leagues responsible.
6.  A good lawyer representing a plaintiff will likely be able to make a successful negligence case to these now-better-informed jurors (i.e., the league's exposure is increasing).
7.  The NHL's lawyers will look at 1?6 and advise the league that to reduce its exposure it must ban fighting.
8.  The league will eventually agree.

The interesting discussion on here ? about how far "informed consent" can indemnify a sports league ? is where some good legal minds would be helpful.  I don't think you can indemnify yourself against negligence, but maybe I'm wrong.

The other interesting discussion is how all this plays out in cases where head trauma IS an integral part of the game, as it is in football.

I think item 4 is where is gets grey. The NHL may lose some law suits, but they may be able to make sufficient changes to protect themselves while keeping fighting in the game. Now, my only evidence to argue that with is that boxing and MMA exist, so that's not very strong.

They may decide to remove fighting to improve the image of the sport or because they feel that it's not an integral part of the game, etc... at some point, but that's different. They would be doing that to make more money likely, not to protect people. They may also decide it's a good idea to throw live bunnies on the ice in 2nd periods too, although I suppose that would increase the amount of bloodshed, so they probably won't do that and remove fighting. That would just be silly.

 

[Chev-boyar-sky]

So then the difference between a boxer and a hockey/football player is labour law? A boxer is allowed to destroy his brain for profit but a hockey player isn't because the former isn't an 'employee' and the latter is?

Well, not to cut your point off or anything but right now hockey players are allowed to play hockey too so there's not quite the stark divide you're presenting. The role of the NHL, and its lack of counterpart in the world of boxing, is only relevant in the sense that it would be pretty difficult for the NHL to argue that they're not employers and therefore not subject to labour law. What responsibilities that means the NHL has in regards to it's current, future and former players isn't settled either.

Yes, I jumped a number of steps ahead. But it was in reference to the topic's title, "the NHL will have to ban fighting one day". So I'm assuming it's because they would be sued and lose and therefore have to ban it to avoid going bankrupt and shutting down, or legal action would force them to do it.

It seems to me that if boxing and MMA can exist,the NHL won't be forced somehow, legally or economically, into banning fighting. They may be forced to prevent players from playing after fights or big hits and educate them on symptoms and such, but if the NHL wants to keep fighting, I don't see it going away.

It would be good to have somebody well versed in labor law chime in, but what I'm contending is:

1.  Fighting is completely extraneous to the game of hockey, meaning that it (and, particularly, the head trauma associated with it) could be eliminated without affecting the basics of the sport.
2.  That being the case, the NHL could ban it without damaging the sport (or the prospects of people playing it).
3.  Fighting can and does result in concussions and long-term neurological damage to the players engaging in it.
4.  The NHL is aware of #3, therefore NOT banning fighting would be negligence on their part.
5.  As more and more stories like Wright's become known, potential jurors will be more likely to hold leagues responsible.
6.  A good lawyer representing a plaintiff will likely be able to make a successful negligence case to these now-better-informed jurors (i.e., the league's exposure is increasing).
7.  The NHL's lawyers will look at 1?6 and advise the league that to reduce its exposure it must ban fighting.
8.  The league will eventually agree.

The interesting discussion on here ? about how far "informed consent" can indemnify a sports league ? is where some good legal minds would be helpful.  I don't think you can indemnify yourself against negligence, but maybe I'm wrong.

The other interesting discussion is how all this plays out in cases where head trauma IS an integral part of the game, as it is in football.

I guess where it becomes dicey from my point of view is #3 and #4.

Hits cause a fair number of concussions in the course of an NHL season. I can't claim to be any kind of expert, but I'd imagine some of those hits are as bad/a lot worse than a good deal of damage that comes from fighting (the NFL example speaks more to hitting than fighting anyway).

The NHL is also quite aware of the brain damage that results from a concussion (as an example Loui Eriksson has 2 already this year, Matthew Lombardi/Eric Lindros would be other examples that came as a result of hits as opposed to fights). Therefore it would be negligent of them to allow their players to engage in hitting as it can (and does) result in lasting (though not always evident) brain damage.

I guess the point of what I'm getting at over the course of the last few posts is that I don't see how a ban on fighting would make sense without a ban on hitting. I don't see the latter happening, so it would be a hard case to make against the former.

Also for those who know more, don't the PA take votes (official or unofficial) on things like rule changes/fighting in the game? Haven't they had them before and players were always in support of it? Isn't that a binding agreement?

It would seem to me at least that the PA look out for themselves and decide on the parameters that the players will perform under. If this was such a big deal to the players then they would've voted it out long ago, no? Seems like a very difficult case to make from where I sit.

 

[moon111]

Maybe they should have to wear bigger helmets?

 

[bustaheims]

Hits cause a fair number of concussions in the course of an NHL season. I can't claim to be any kind of expert, but I'd imagine some of those hits are as bad/a lot worse than a good deal of damage that comes from fighting (the NFL example speaks more to hitting than fighting anyway).

The NHL is also quite aware of the brain damage that results from a concussion (as an example Loui Eriksson has 2 already this year, Matthew Lombardi/Eric Lindros would be other examples that came as a result of hits as opposed to fights). Therefore it would be negligent of them to allow their players to engage in hitting as it can (and does) result in lasting (though not always evident) brain damage.

I guess the point of what I'm getting at over the course of the last few posts is that I don't see how a ban on fighting would make sense without a ban on hitting. I don't see the latter happening, so it would be a hard case to make against the former.

The problem is that you're trying to make an apples to apples comparison with two things that really quite different. The first, and most obvious, difference is that one is an integral part of the game and the other is not. Hitting is a universal part of the game of hockey. It's present in every professional league on the planet. You can't take it out of the game without significantly changing the sport. Fighting that doesn't result in suspension is something that's unique to North American hockey. Fighting can be completely removed and the game really would not be noticeably different. That alone takes away the whole argument that if fighting were to be removed, hitting would have to be next. Secondly, the league has already started to take measures to make hitting less likely to cause concussions. They've begun to crack down on hits to the head. They're looking into equipment that better protects the players. They've recognized there's an issue there, and they're taking steps to make an important part of the game safer for the players. No one has ever said anything that can potentially cause a concussion should be taken out of the game, but, rather, something that is really not part of the sport itself (as other leagues have shown, fighting can be very easily removed without having a negative impact on the sport) can and should be removed in the name of player safety.

As for the NFL thing, it's also not about taking hitting out of their game - that would be a complete and total overhaul of the sport - it's about making it as safe as possible for the players.

 

[bustaheims]

Maybe they should have to wear bigger helmets?

Bigger isn't necessarily the right way to go, but, as far as I know, the league and the PA are looking into helmets that do a better job of protecting the players from concussions.

 

[TML fan]

Hitting is not an integral part of hockey.

 

[bustaheims]

Hitting is not an integral part of hockey.

Big, bone rattling hits aren't, but, body checks definitely are.