Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Sueing a kid for what was just an accident is really, really sad. What a pathetic guy.

Really? Do you feel the same way about all accidents? How about traffic accidents?

There is honestly a huge difference between the negligence of one or more motor vehicle operators, and a kid tossing his helmet UP in the air in celebration

Exactly that. It depends on the accident in question.

When there are substantial medical bills involved the people responsible, accidental or not, should have to help.

 Medium of Death wrote:
When there are substantial medical bills involved the people responsible, accidental or not, should have to help.

When the parents are forced to sign waivers, saying "i will not sue the league or its coaches if my precious snowflake is hurt playing a game/practicing" then it should honestly work both ways. The league should have medical insurance, and if nothing else, they should help cover the costs with that insurance, even though he's a (former) coach.

The key question that must be asked is what colour was the helmet?

If the coach was injured in a purple helmet tossing off incident it would put the whole affair in a very different light.

Haha thanks for that KK. You just made me guffaw when my boss came through the door.

Sure there are differences between this and a traffic accident. There are also similarities. All types of accidents can lead to costly damage. Responsibility can be attributed to all types of accidents and sometimes children are the ones responsible. Now, I'm not saying that this is a rock solid case of negligence. I would say we don't have enough information to reach a conclusion. But I do think the idea that children are per se immune to being held responsible, via their parents, for the accidental consequences of their actions is pretty silly.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The key question that must be asked is what colour was the helmet?

If the coach was injured in a purple helmet tossing off incident it would put the whole affair in a very different light.

OooOOOooohh.. you mean, if it was a black "assualt" helmet? Someone should BAN them before more people are tragically hurt by these menaces to society!

Sueing kids for what should just be handled with proper insurance.. now that's silly.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
purple helmet tossing off

you mean, if it was a black "assualt" helmet?

Not quite.



Think about it a little more

 Manchu wrote:
Sure there are differences between this and a traffic accident. There are also similarities. All types of accidents can lead to costly damage. Responsibility can be attributed to all types of accidents and sometimes children are the ones responsible. Now, I'm not saying that this is a rock solid case of negligence. I would say we don't have enough information to reach a conclusion. But I do think the idea that children are per se immune to being held responsible, via their parents, for their accidental consequences of their actions is pretty silly.

And as I just said in a previous post, the league should have insurance, and as it forced parents to sign waivers the parents should not be responsible for this pansy's injuries because they happened during a league sponsored event.

What do the waivers have to do with anything? Also, I'm not sure why the team (much less the whole league) should have insurance. Insurance covering what? And who will pay the premiums?

 Manchu wrote:
What do the waivers have to do with anything? Also, I'm not sure why the team (much less the whole league) should have insurance. Insurance covering what? And who will pay the premiums?

Most leagues have insurance, in which the premiums are actually paid by the participants "entry fees" (so that $100 or however much it is per season, part of it is going to cover things like insurance). This sort of thing gets to be even bigger if the kids are participating in a contact sport. It's protection against suing by the parents. Say little timmy is trying to slide into 2nd, but jams his foot into the bag, and tears a ligament in his knee? that stuff can be quite expensive, and is during the course of organized team activities. As such, the league's insurance will cover some/most/all expenses for his recovery.

I'm currently coaching HS level rugby, and we had to significantly alter our practice plan due to exactly this situation.

Are you covered under that plan as a coach?

What does a waiver actually waive if you have an insurance policy to cover potential liabilities arising from injury?

 Manchu wrote:
Are you covered under that plan as a coach?

What does a waiver actually waive if you have an insurance policy to cover potential liabilities arising from injury?

The waiver says that the parents won't sue the league/team,etc. and outlines the ways to go about getting that insurance payout, if needed.


As to me as a coach, I am covered under a different plan, with USA Rugby. I can't say to coaches of other sports and leagues though.

Well I'm no doctor, but I fail to see how a plastic helment, no matter how hard it is flung, could damage an Achilles tendon unless there was something very wrong with it beforehand.

Sounds like someone fancies early retirement and see this as a nice way to get it.

So if you have in your example both insurance and a waiver of suit, you can probably understand that these two things are not equivalent. That is, the presence of insurance in this case would not obviate a lawsuit against the kid. In fact, we don't know whether the coach is covered under some plan precisely because it is irrelevant to him suing the kid.

 Manchu wrote:
So if you have in your example both insurance and a waiver of suit, you can probably understand that these two things are not equivalent. That is, the presence of insurance in this case would not obviate a lawsuit against the kid. In fact, we don't know whether the coach is covered under some plan precisely because it is irrelevant to him suing the kid.

What I'm saying, is that if this league is at all any good, and values it's coaches (and they should, they're all volunteers) then they SHOULD cover this guy's apparent injuries. But, as I've also said, like LuciusAR, that I cannot possibly see a way for any helmet that is tossed/thrown to injure, much less tear an Achilles tendon.

Hmmmm.

Children are playing organised sport. There must be a qualified and responsible person overseeing this activity. If anyone should be sue it is the responsible person that allowed this celebration to happen, so the coach.

Oh hang on its the softcock that has "claimed" the injury from a plastic helmet.

This is so pathetic. That coach should (and probably will be) hounded out of sport and hopefully society.

Edit: AAAGHHHH!!! Wrong thread.