NSWRU and referee getting sued

[BPC]

Wonder why she is going down this path, and not pursuing her "employer" Manly?
Maybe there is not enough $$ in going down the workers comp route?

Arguably Manly didn't breach any duty of care to Ms Donnan. She can't claim that they didn't provide a safe workplace, as running onto a football field is inherently dangerous.

The people who arguably breached their duty of care were the referee and his employer. This is assuming that they owed a duty of care to Ms Donnan. I haven't done any personal injury work in years so I couldn't hazard a guess. I do know that Agar v Hyde is not really on point because it is about whether there was a duty of care to change certain rules, whereas this case is about a referee's decision in a situation not strictly covered by law but is a matter of judgment.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The workers compensation scheme has certain payback provisions if a person claims damages. Compo is a statutory scheme so is different in kind to court-awarded damages.

That is not correct:http://www.workcover.nsw.gov.au/for...ensation-changes-benefits-fact-sheet-3921.pdf
The new regime limits them to 5 years.
It may have a retrospective operation.
She may not have been an employee: she may have been an independent contractor to the club. Often happens because as such she can bill the health insurance of the players she treats.

If she was paid compo it will have to be repaid from any damages she recovers: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/wca1987255/s151z.html

What's the unfunded liability of that scheme again? $6.5b http://www.treasury.sa.gov.au/CTPgreenpaper/downloads/AustralianLawyersAlliance.pdf

 

[BPC]

Section 151z is one of the worst understood and misapplied provisions in personal injury law, at least when I ever came across it. Thankfully I left personal injury litigation behind over 12 years ago.

Workers compensation is statutory whereas common law damages (negligence) is judicial. Getting workers' compensation does not create a judgment which means:
(a) a judgment is a once and for all, binding decision but compo does not have this characteristic and so doesn't prevent a negligence claim (subject to s 151z to prevent double dipping); and
(b) compo is not fault based plus there is no judicial determination of facts so getting compo is no guarantee that a negligence claim will succeed.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Arguably Manly didn't breach any duty of care to Ms Donnan. She can't claim that they didn't provide a safe workplace, as running onto a football field is inherently dangerous.

I think you're overlooking the fact that the duty of an employer (assuming, contrary to the frequent arrangement, that they were an employer) is to ensure that reasonable care is taken.

 

[BPC]

I think you're overlooking the fact that the duty of an employer (assuming, contrary to the frequent arrangement, that they were an employer) is to ensure that reasonable care is taken.

True, a lot depends on what the contractual arrangements between Ms Donnan and the club were.

But, how could Manly ensure that reasonable care was taken? It didn't employ the referee and it could not issue directions to him about what to do. It wasn't vicariously liable for what the referee did or didn't do. It could have directed Ms Donnan not to enter the field of play but that defeats part of the purpose of having her there and I think that the decision by Ms Donnan not to pursue Manly reflects that she accepts that was her role.

 

[Refabit]

Its standard practice in my neck of the woods (pre-game) to tell physios/trainers to enter the field to treat an injured player whenever they think fit. I'e. don't wait for me to stop play.
But if this doesn't happen and physios only run on when invited, I am not sure the welfare of the players is being given 1st priority. It may be protecting the physios but I would have thought an injured player's welfare is the pressing concern.
Its sad to see this US style development.
Also not going to do much for referee recruitment at a time when we're not exactly being bowled over with new ref applications.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Its standard practice in my neck of the woods (pre-game) to tell physios/trainers to enter the field to treat an injured player whenever they think fit. I'e. don't wait for me to stop play.
But if this doesn't happen and physios only run on when invited, I am not sure the welfare of the players is being given 1st priority. It may be protecting the physios but I would have thought an injured player's welfare is the pressing concern.
Its sad to see this US style development.
Also not going to do much for referee recruitment at a time when we're not exactly being bowled over with new ref applications.

How much difference does a physio really make?????
Sounds to me like this ref should have called it off - fine to play on but as soon as it gets close to player (let alone a physio) blow the whistle.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

It's easier said than done, a Free Kick is not a break in play and you almost assume they are going to tap or kick it immediately. Clearly the system of "stopping the game when it feels too close" hasn't worked here. And it will fail once every few thousand times.

The problem if a physio runs onto the field is that if you stop the game you award a scrum to the attacking team. If the attacking team isn't scrumming very well on that day and it's a defending player who is lying on the ground.. You can see why the game isn't always stopped early enough to avoid risk of injury.

 

[Spieber]

How much difference does a physio really make?????
Sounds to me like this ref should have called it off - fine to play on but as soon as it gets close to player (let alone a physio) blow the whistle.

Interested in others thoughts on the time criticality of the physio coming on to attend an injured player.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It's easier said than done, a Free Kick is not a break in play and you almost assume they are going to tap or kick it immediately. Clearly the system of "stopping the game when it feels too close" hasn't worked here. And it will fail once every few thousand times.

The ref has the power to stop the game if someone is endangered whether there's been a free kick or anything else.
http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?highlight=injury&law=6.A.8

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I just said that a free kick doesn't feel that much different from general play. So if the game wasn't stopped before a free kick was given, the free kick itself isn't going to present a better opportunity to stop the play.

(in theory yes, but when you are out there it's not)

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Interested in others thoughts on the time criticality of the physio coming onto attend an injured player. If it were a car accident it could be 10-20 minutes before properly trained paramedics arrive - I wonder if 30-60 seconds will make a difference for rugby injuries - the serious ones are neck and head injuries - possibly outside a physios expertise. Happy to be corrected. Could end up waiting for the ref's permission if case lost.

I'm not meaning to suggest that a a serious head or neck injury is outside the area of expertise of a physio. However, if the player has sustained such an injury and the play moves towards him that player is likely to be affected if play collides with the injured player.
It is for that reason that keeping the physio off until ref calls them on is not the solution.
The ref has to be vigilant to the risk of further injury to players so the presence of the physio is really only relevant to who gets injured: an already injured player or a physio attending him or both - surely it is not suggested that an injured player courts the risk of further injury if the ref should/could have seen him and stopped play?
I am also not intending to suggest that the ref in this case could have foreseen that play would move as it did, putting someone he or she thought not to be at risk, at risk.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I just said that a free kick doesn't feel that much different from general play. So if the game wasn't stopped before a free kick was given, the free kick itself isn't going to present a better opportunity to stop the play.

(in theory yes, but when you are out there it's not)

The blow of the whistle stops play

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Am I really that bad at communicating a point?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Am I really that bad at communicating a point?

Search me - all i can say is I'm not getting your point.
He just blows his whistle again - i dont see the problem

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I thought when you said "play on", you meant off the FK. Ok sorry, I misread it.

I'd say we need a video before deciding on what the people involved should have done. But I'd point out that the current approach is bound to fail on the odd occasion. Not that I have a solution.

 

[Sidbarret]

True, a lot depends on what the contractual arrangements between Ms Donnan and the club were.

But, how could Manly ensure that reasonable care was taken? It didn't employ the referee and it could not issue directions to him about what to do. It wasn't vicariously liable for what the referee did or didn't do. It could have directed Ms Donnan not to enter the field of play but that defeats part of the purpose of having her there and I think that the decision by Ms Donnan not to pursue Manly reflects that she accepts that was her role.

An interesting angle is the relationship between the club and NSWRU/ARU. I am not clued up with law relating to voluntary bodies (the governing body, NSWRU/ARU, being a club of clubs so to speak) and whether the governing body can incur liability (or exist) free from its members.

The second angle is that Manly was the host of an ARU event (the game in question). They have a duty to ensure a safe event for the participants, auxiliary staff and fans.

Not really sure where I am going with this, but it seems strange that Many has not been listed amongst the defendants in this matter.


Also the injuries seem completely out of proportion with what you would expect, more what you would expect in a car crash than an accidental collision between two human beings, regardless of their difference in size. I guess it was just worst case scenario.

 

[Spieber]

An interesting angle is the relationship between the club and NSWRU/ARU. I am not clued up with law relating to voluntary bodies (the governing body, NSWRU/ARU, being a club of clubs so to speak) and whether the governing body can incur liability (or exist) free from its members.

The second angle is that Manly was the host of an ARU event (the game in question). They have a duty to ensure a safe event for the participants, auxiliary staff and fans.

Not really sure where I am going with this, but it seems strange that Many has not been listed amongst the defendants in this matter.


Also the injuries seem completely out of proportion with what you would expect, more what you would expect in a car crash than an accidental collision between two human beings, regardless of their difference in size. I guess it was just worst case scenario.

Interesting thought on the extent of the injury given she went onto the London Olympics as Tonga's physio but then Rocky Bleier was told he would never walk again and subsequently won a Superbowl ring.

 

[I like to watch]

Arguably Manly didn't breach any duty of care to Ms Donnan. She can't claim that they didn't provide a safe workplace, as running onto a football field is inherently dangerous.

The people who arguably breached their duty of care were the referee and his employer. This is assuming that they owed a duty of care to Ms Donnan. I haven't done any personal injury work in years so I couldn't hazard a guess. I do know that Agar v Hyde is not really on point because it is about whether there was a duty of care to change certain rules, whereas this case is about a referee's decision in a situation not strictly covered by law but is a matter of judgment.

This is interesting.
I would thought her legal advice would have been to add them all, get a verdict and let the court decide who was liable?

 

[Mighty Moth]

Physio sues after onfield collision with players

I said it on facebook and I'll say it here too. Be careful what you write. " I would advise people not to comment in regards to a matter before the court. Comments in the article are disabled for a reason. There is a risk of defamation and influence of the jury. "