I understand those who believe Judge Kathleen McHugh was too harsh in denying Chad Johnson probation for not taking the proceedings seriously. But lets not forget why Johnson was in court in the first place (courtesy of TMZ.com). 
No more words necessary.
Apparently Chad Johnson’s new favorite person in the world is Broward County Judge Kathleen McHugh. Johnson was released today, coincidentally as I wrote my last post. Johnson is thankful to McHugh for teaching him a lesson that others were not able to. As I said in my last post, I don’t think Johnson is a bad guy but society has lifted athletes on a pedestal and not only enabled them to behave the way they do but in many cases, encouraged them to act that way. I’m personally happy to hear Johnson learned a lesson and took the time to reflect on his actions. Lets hope others can learn a lesson from this situation.
Update: Chad Johnson was released from jail after issuing an apology to Judge Kathleen McHugh.
By now you’ve probably heard about the butt-slap heard around the world. In case you haven’t, former NFL Wide Receiver Chad Johnson was in court in Florida for a probation hearing. As the judge was about to accept a plea agreement from Johnson’s attorney, Adam Swickle, Johnson slapped Swickle on the behind indicating his satisfaction with Swickle’s representation of him. The room burst out in laughter but Broward County Judge Kathleen McHugh, was not amused. She immediately questioned Johnson as to whether he was taking the proceeding seriously. Despite Johnson’s plea’s, McHugh sentenced him to 30 days in jail in violation of his probation.
This scenario can’t help but raise the topic about how we treat athletes growing up and whether that affects their behavior as adults. We live in a society where ESPN, Sports Illustrated and other media outlets are on the lookout for the next great superstar. In our search for that person, we dig deeper into the amateur ranks and in the process, we not only put immense pressure on teenaged athletes, but the exposure they receive throws them into a life of stardom prematurely. A prime example of an athlete thrown into the spotlight prematurely is Lebron James. James was talked about as ‘the next great thing’ on Sportscenter, as an eighth grader. By all accounts, James has handled himself well, he has never been in trouble with the law and has for the most part been a model citizen. However, there have been glimpses of the effects of the media exposure and star treatment. For example, “The Decision” reeked of the “look at me” attitude that comes from the attention showered upon him from an early age. Another instance that demonstrates possible effects of privileged treatement is when James walked off the court after losing to the Orlando Magic in the 2009 playoffs. I’m sorry, did we forget to teach our future superstar athletes sportsmanship? Finally for those who think the early attention and media exposure did not affect James, take a look at the tattoo on his back.
Time after time we let our athletes off the hook for their legal or moral indiscretions, simply because they can perform on the field. NFL defensive back Adam “Pacman” Jones is a more extreme example than James. Jones has been arrested no less than nine times in the past eight years (the most recent being a couple weeks ago), yet somehow he is still on an NFL roster going into the upcoming season. In what other industry in this country can someone with that many arrests for (violent behavior nonetheless), still remain employed? The answer is none. Our society has been programmed to treat athletes as heroes and gods.
The good news is, there have been signs recently of a trend towards holding athletes accountable for their actions. Former Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress was put away for two years for carrying a handgun into a New York City nightclub and accidentally shooting himself in the leg. Another example was Eagles quarterback Michael Vick, who was shown no preferential treatment when he was sentenced to almost two years in prison for organized dog fighting.
We are also seeing league commissioners starting to take action. As controversial as some of his moves have been, NFL Commissioner Roger Goddell has the right idea. Misbehave and you will be suspended. Goddell has used the NFL personal-conduct policy to try and clean up player conduct off the field. Goddell suspended Jones for a full season and refused to shorten the sentence when Jones asked for leniency. He also suspended Burress and Vick similarly for their indiscretions. Whether Goddell’s actions will work to keep players in line is yet to be seen, but teams are now forced to take off the field conduct into consideration so they don’t end up paying a player millions of dollars while he sits out a suspension for off the field conduct.
I’m not saying Chad Johnson is a bad guy, but he is a product of the athlete-coddling society we live in. Johnson was infamous for his touchdown celebrations on the field but someone forgot to remind him the same line of thinking does not apply in the courtroom. Somehow I think he will act differently next time.
In another tragic story similar to the NASCAR post yesterday, an Idaho man who was struck by a foul ball and lost his eye, will be allowed to seek damages from the Boise Hawks, a minor league team in the Chicago Cubs farm system.
The Idaho Supreme Court decided not to apply the “Baseball Rule” in this case allowing the case to proceed. The “Baseball Rule” generally absolves stadium owners of liability for these types of injuries as long as they take reasonable precautions in protecting spectators; in other areas of the stadium, fans assume the risks of attending the game, which include being struck by a foul ball.
The issue that will be argued should this case go to trial is whether the team provided adequate protection for fans. A number of questions will arise in determining whether the team and stadium owner are held liable: Should the team have provided netting or screens for fans that are not in areas of the stadium where they are watching the game (i.e. concession stands)? Was that netting installed properly, strong enough and high enough? Did the team provide adequate warnings to fans in certain areas of the park where foul balls or fly balls might be common? As you can see, the Court’s decision not to apply the “Baseball Rule” opens the team and stadium up to a lot of criticism and possible financial liability.
Another question that may arise similar to the question in the NASCAR case, is the issue of the disclaimer on the back of the ticket and whether it absolves the team and owner of the stadium of liability. Courts have gone both ways on this issue. It can be said that the disclaimer on the back is a contract: When you purchase a ticket, you agree to the terms including those on the back. However, many courts may rule that if the ticket-holder was not made aware of the disclaimer on the back, it is not a valid contract. Is it fair that after you agree to a contract, additional terms that you were unaware of are used against you? Not so much.
To protect themselves from suits such as this, teams can provide the disclaimer on the back but also must be able to show they provide reasonable protection and warning for fans in dangerous areas of the ballparks. In addition, providing on-site emergency medical services and warning fans through PA announcements can reduce the possibility of a successful lawsuit against them
Although in this case, the Court decided the “Baseball Rule” does not apply so the Idaho fan is able to sue, it is recognized by many jurisdictions and therefore it may be difficult to sue a team if you’re injured. Regardless of where you live or attend a game, if you are at a sporting event where there’s a risk of flying objects at high speeds, keep your head up!
In case you haven’t been following the Drake vs. Chris Brown feud, the narrative stemming from their brawl at W.i.P nightclub in NYC last year is now growing. Spurs guard Tony Parker’s lawsuit against the nightclub has been revised to include Brown’s recent outburst against singer Frank Ocean over a parking spot (come on now, we’ve all been there). Parker mentioning this story in his lawsuit, in addition to Brown’s 2009 beating of his girlfriend Rihanna, helps his case against the club by showing it was negligent in allowing Brown into the club without adequate security. Parker’s lawsuit is based on the fact that it was foreseeable that a fight may break out by not only allowing Brown and Drake into the club, but placing them in VIP booths close to each other. By providing further evidence that Brown is a violent person, Parker has strengthened his case, putting more pressure on the owners of the nightclub to settle.
In addition, Brown and Drake are being sued by a French (male) model named Romain Julien for injuries he sustained during the fight (turns out there is more to life than being really really good looking). In response, Brown and Drake are suing each other, the first time they are going after each other in court. In effect, if Julien wins his lawsuit, a judge will have to decide whether Brown or Drake is responsible for paying up.
Briefly, the lawsuits by Brown and Drake against each other are called crossclaims and are allowed under Rule 13(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Basically, the suit between the defendants must “arise out of the transaction or occurrence” the original claim was based on. In this case it’s not too complicated; Julien is suing for injuries sustained in the fight and Drake and Brown are suing each other saying the other caused the fight in which Julien was injured. It may be difficult to substantiate who started the fight because witnesses are limited and even if enough witnesses are found, their stories can be called into question on a number of factors including how dark the nightclub was and how much they had to drink that night. The court may choose to apply the rule of comparative negligence which would allocate the amount of damages between Brown and Drake in proportion to how responsible each was in causing the injury to Julien.
Here’s some advice for all parties involved: Grow Up.
Imagine going to a sporting event and seeing a 200-pound engine flying at you at over 200 miles per hour – quick what would you do? (I say duck and call Morgan and Morgan). The recent injuries to fans watching a race at Daytona last weekend have led at least three fans to hiring an attorney (they actually hired Morgan and Morgan). Here is an overview of why they may have a case and what defense may be used to counter a lawsuit.
The fans that were injured will likely sue NASCAR and International Speedway Corporation (ISC)(who owns Daytona International Speedway) for negligence. The theory of negligence is based on the fact that the defendants (NASCAR and ISC) owe a duty of care to the fans that come watch their events.
For the fans suing to actually win in court, they would have to prove that the defendants were negligent in some aspect of protecting the fans from injuries. An example would be to prove the fencing NASCAR uses between the track and the seats is not strong enough to protect fans from flying debris (or in this case an engine). Proving that the fencing was not strong enough is likely not enough to prevail in court however. The fans would have to prove NASCAR knew the fencing was not strong enough and could lead to injuries to fans but failed to do anything about it.
In addition, NASCAR tickets, like many other major sporting event tickets, contain a disclaimer on the back. The disclaimer on the back of the Daytona tickets read:
“The holder of this ticket expressly assumes all risk incident to the event, whether occurring prior to, during or subsequent to the actual event, and agrees that all participants, sanctioning bodies, and all employees, agents, officers, and directors of Daytona International Speedway, its affiliates and subsidiaries, are hereby released from any and all claims arising from the event, including claims of negligence.”
The theory these disclaimers are based on is ‘assumption of risk’ – meaning fans are aware of the inherent dangers of attending a sporting event and assume the risk of injury. The disclaimer is probably strong enough to hold up in court but the issue is whether NASCAR is willing to gamble on that. You are never guaranteed to win going to court and although NASCAR requires tracks to hold $50 million of insurance coverage for claims like this one, juries are unpredictable and if they award lets say, $55 million, then NASCAR is $5 million in the hole.
Because of the risk of losing, NASCAR and ISC may end up settling in this case. Settling would be smart, not only to protect themselves from greater financial loss in this case, but also from a public relations perspective. NASCAR doesn’t want a long drawn out trial highlighting the dangers of going to watch one of their races.
As we head into Super Bowl week a foggy haze continues to hover over the NFL taking many forms, the most recent being President Obama’s comments about the sport of football in general and Baltimore Ravens safety Bernard Pollard’s theory about the future of the NFL. A more serious story that is clouding Super Bowl week comes in the form of Junior Seau’s family filing a wrongful death lawsuit against the NFL.
Seau’s ex-wife Gina Seau, his four children and Beth Hoffman, the trustee of his estate, are suing the NFL claiming the former linebacker’s suicide was the result of chronic tramautic encephalopathy (CTE) which was caused by repeated hits during his playing career. Seau’s family is highlighting NFL Films in the lawsuit claiming the NFL glorified violent play through videos sold by NFL Films. NFL Films is a company owned by the NFL which produces most of its video content with the exception of live coverage of games.
In addition to suing the NFL, the Associated Press reports the Seau’s family is also suing helmet manufacturer Riddell Inc. claiming it was “negligent in their design, testing, assembly, manufacture, marketing, and engineering of the helmets”. Basically everything…including the kitchen sink.
The complaint details physical as well as behavioral symptoms demonstrated by Seau as early as the mid-90’s including “dizziness and other symptoms of concussion,” with a “noted change in his behavior and functioning.” In addition the complaint claims that Seau suffered from “erratic” behavior and showed “emotional instability”.
The lawsuit also contends that Seau became “a compulsive and manic gambler” which led to “gambling binges” and losses of “significant amounts of money”.
The NFL’s lawyers will likely begin fighting this lawsuit by asking for dismissal based on the statute of limitations having run. A statute of limitations sets the maximum time after an event has occurred that legal proceedings may be initiated.
If Seau was exhibiting symptoms through 2009 when the NFL came forward in front of Congress, acknowledged the problem and began taking action to remedy it, then the statute of limitations clock started ticking from that point on and the suit will likely be dismissed. The only exception may come with the discovery rule. The discovery rule allows for a delay on when the statute of limitations begins. If an injury was not discovered until a period of time after the injury occurred, the statue of limitations begins when the injury is discovered. In this case however, because the complaint details symptoms Seau suffered many years ago, the discovery rule will likely not help.
If the suit is not dismissed, Seau’s family will have to prove that Seau developed CTE from the hits he took while playing and that the NFL deliberately ignored and concealed evidence of the risks associated with repeated blows to the head and brain injuries from those hits. Seau’s family would have to prove this “beyond a preponderance of the evidence”, meaning they have to show there is more than a 50% chance that the NFL’s “acts or omissions” led to Seau developing CTE which eventually caused his death.
The suit against Riddell Inc. is a product liability lawsuit. There generally are three different types of product liability claims: manufacturing defect, design defect, and failure to warn. In this case Seau’s family is including all three of these claiming that Riddell Inc. was “negligent in their design, testing, assembly, manufacture, marketing, and engineering of the helmets” used by NFL players. A basic negligence claim requires the plaintiff (in this case Seau’s family) to prove:
Because of the statute of limitations it will likely be difficult for Seau’s family to prevail in this case as well. In the unlikely event the case is not dismissed prior to trial, it will be difficult to prove that Riddell fell below the duty of care it owes to those who use their products. If the case goes to trial, Riddell will likely have to show its entire process of creating the helmets including research, testing, design, manufacturing, and distribution. As long as Riddell shows they exercised ordinary and reasonable care in the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of the product as well as providing sufficient warning labels, Seau’s family will have a tough time winning this case.
According to the AP, Seau’s family has issued a statement: “We know this lawsuit will not bring back Junior. But it will send a message that the NFL needs to care for its former players, acknowledge its decades of deception on the issue of head injuries and player safety, and make the game safer for future generations”.
Although Seau’s family may not win this lawsuit in court, it seems like they are more concerned with raising awareness of concussions in the NFL and in forcing the league to make changes. The question is, will these changes hurt the popularity of the game? Would you want to watch an NFL without the hard hitting plays we see every week?
