What If Someone Had A Sports Injury During A Soccer Game?

Staff Sergeant

Hi,

What if, a young man with a good job was playing football for his club on a weekend, and was unfortunate enough to get injured during the game causing a serious injury to part of his leg which required the leg to be immobilised and the use of crutches for 6 weeks, and then surgery was required to fix the injury. All the while this young man was out of work.

If the young man considered that the pitch his injury occurred on was unplayable at the time of the injury occurring, who should pay the medical costs, and who would be liable for costs in this pretend scenario.

Are the individual players liable for themselves?

Are the clubs liable?

Is the Ref liable?

Is the council liable?

Presume the pitch is owned by the council.

Best regards

SS

ravima

Hard to sue your own club and club may have indemnified the Council.

Could sue the other player involved.

What did the ref do that was wrong?

In all of these, you have to prove that whoever you are sueing was liable for your injury.

many clubs/associations have a personal accident type policy that should cover medical expenses and loss of earnings, less social welfare if applicable. Ask your club secretary.

Reloc8

Possibly council, possibly ref or his sporting body (if he's affiliated) in the event that the pitch was in fact unsafe. Both owe a duty of care not to be negligent in how they present the pitch (in case of the council) and officiate (in case of ref who has last say on whether the match is played).

This presumes the injury arose specifically from the dangerous state of the pitch and expert evidence in that respect would be required.

If the unsafe nature of the pitch was obvious to any observer then the young man voluntarily assumed the risk of injury and might suffer a 100% reduction in recovery or some lesser amount.

The young man needs to go a solicitor promptly if his injury is significant and loss severe. Such a case would be expensive to set up and difficult to succeed in. If the injury is not significant and/or the costs not severe then the young man would be best advised to move on.

Staff Sergeant

Thanks for the swift replys,

If the young man in question was injured purley due to the state of the pitch, no 3rd party involvement, which was declared fit to play on by both the ref and the council, could the young man be partly at fault for playing on the pitch given that it had been deemed fit to play by people in a position to decide a pitches playibility on a weekly basis?

Lets say that the young mans injury could potentially end his football career and have an effect on his potential fitness levels in the future.

Reloc8

First Q - the young man could be partly at fault if the dangerous state of the pitch was obvious to him and he decided to play anyway.

Also if the dangerous nature became obvious to him during the game and he decided to play on.

Second question - that goes to quantum (amount of recovery) and not liability.

The young man is not going to win his case on boards.ie but really should go and have a chat with a solicitor

Staff Sergeant

Thanks reloc8

fleece

"If the young man considered that the pitch his injury occurred on was unplayable at the time of the injury occurring"


Why did the presumably intelligent young man chose to participate if he deemed it unplayable , is he not responsible for his own actions ?

Was he forced by the council , referee or club to take part ?

Did all or a large amount of other participants suffer similar injury due to the condition of the pitch ?

Reloc8

Who cares ? He needs to go to a solicitor. The issues you raise are addressed above.

There's a section in the FIFA Official Rules that says that all referees are not liable for any injury that occurs on the field of play.

Love to see someone argue that point See if we can get the offside rule deemed unconstitutional as it denies the Pippo Inzaghi's of the world the right to earn a livelihood.

Staff Sergeant

fleece wrote: »

"If the young man considered that the pitch his injury occurred on was unplayable at the time of the injury occurring"


Why did the presumably intelligent young man chose to participate if he deemed it unplayable , is he not responsible for his own actions ?

Was he forced by the council , referee or club to take part ?

Did all or a large amount of other participants suffer similar injury due to the condition of the pitch ?

Hi Fleece,

If this scenario was real, I would say that the young man in question would seek legal advice regardless.

The young man has played football for a number of years injury free on football pitches in similar disrepair. There seems to be a very fine line between a playable pitch and an unplayable pitch. The call in my opinion is with the referee at kick off. I presume the number of sports people who love their sport and who decide as individuals not to play a game on any given day due to the conditions, are very few.

If the onus is on the player, why don't clubs get them to sign waivers and not pay for insurance policies. If you slip on a broken footpath are you at fault for waking on the broken footpath?

Thanks for the reply fleece.

Jo King

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a section in the FIFA Official Rules that says that all referees are not liable for any injury that occurs on the field of play.

Love to see someone argue that point .

No one is going to argue it. You cannot contract out of liability for personal injury.

Jo King

Jo King wrote: »

No one is going to argue it. You cannot contract out of liability for personal injury.

Yeah, i know. Your screenname ironic?

PCPhoto

Staff Sergeant wrote: »

Hi Fleece,

If this scenario was real, I would say that the young man in question would seek legal advice regardless.

The young man has played football for a number of years injury free on football pitches in similar disrepair. There seems to be a very fine line between a playable pitch and an unplayable pitch. The call in my opinion is with the referee at kick off. I presume the number of sports people who love their sport and who decide as individuals not to play a game on any given day due to the conditions, are very few.

If the onus is on the player, why don't clubs get them to sign waivers and not pay for insurance policies. If you slip on a broken footpath are you at fault for waking on the broken footpath?

Thanks for the reply fleece.

if a legal action is taken in this case - it would be fairly fair to assume that if successful the referee's association would indicate to their members that ALL matches will be deemed unplayable - in the event of heavy rainfall, or even heavy winds - because the ref's will be accountable for any injuries due to pitch conditions......could lead to a fixture nightmare and winter break for soccer fixtures.

EDIT: At the end of the day - the player went out onto the pitch - if the player has had so much experience in playing - injury free for years - why didn't he refuse to play ? Did the player feel the pitch was unplayable ?

I've suffered two hamstring tears - which ruined my football prospects over 10yrs ago - due to not warming up properly, an injury to another player meant I was brought on without time to warm up properly - I'm currently limited to 5-a -side as my fitness levels were never fully recovered, some of my team mates went over and made it in England one or two played in the premiership, some played in the championship and some played in the Eircom League....I'm not saying I could have made it...but shows the level I was once at.

ilovelamp2000

Am the only one who thinks that when you enter a sports field to take part in a game your assuming a reasonable risk of being injured ?

I've played sports all my life, I know there's a chance I can break bones, tear muscles etc in the ordinary course of a game. I happily take the risk and get on with it.

Lawstud

Is this a joke? Grow a pair!! If you get injured playing football you should deal with it yourself. Take some responsibility for yourself for gods sake. Fair enough if an opposing player made a malicious tackle with intent to break a leg. But talking about suing people due to the state of the pitch. Christ! man up... you are a joke.

FYI if you did decide to initiate proceedings in relation to this issue it is my professional opinion that you will face a steep uphill struggle.

Best of luck.

What a fxxking joke.

Staff Sergeant

Thanks Lawstud for the humourous Braveheartesque reply:D

As I said if this were a real scenario the young man in question would have made his mind up by now to seek real legal advice, thanks anyway.

HarryPotter41

Staff Sergeant wrote: »

Hi,

What if, a young man with a good job was playing football for his club on a weekend, and was unfortunate enough to get injured during the game causing a serious injury to part of his leg which required the leg to be immobilised and the use of crutches for 6 weeks, and then surgery was required to fix the injury. All the while this young man was out of work.

If the young man considered that the pitch his injury occurred on was unplayable at the time of the injury occurring, who should pay the medical costs, and who would be liable for costs in this pretend scenario.

Are the individual players liable for themselves?

Are the clubs liable?

Is the Ref liable?

Is the council liable?

Presume the pitch is owned by the council.

Best regards

SS

First off, referees decide pitches are playable, not councils.

Secondly, player goes onto a pitch knowing their is a risk of injury, how do you prove that the pitch was the cause?? You can't, you can say it was a strong possibility, no proof.

Players get injured all the time and are off work, its a risk they take, the people I know who don't want that gave up football. Those that wanted to continue to play took out their own personal insurance.

This would be just another case of who can I sue IMO. You go on the pitch, you take your chances.

Lawstud

Staff Sergeant wrote: »

Thanks Lawstud for the humourous Braveheartesque reply:D

As I said if this were a real scenario the young man in question would have made his mind up by now to seek real legal advice, thanks anyway.

If this was a real scenario he would be laughed out of a solicitors office. FFS!

PCPhoto

Lawstud wrote: »

If this was a real scenario he would be laughed out of a solicitors office. FFS!

C'mon ..... IF this was a real life scenario .... the solicitor would happily take his money - agree with him that he has a "chance" of winning his case and go along with it until the club/council/referees association make an offer.....or till the matter is dealt with in the courts.

Best of my knowledge from my footballing days - we paid annual subscriptions/insurance to the club - which covered us in the event of injury/loss of earnings etc.....so my first point of contact would be the club.

HarryPotter41

PCPhoto wrote: »

C'mon ..... IF this was a real life scenario .... the solicitor would happily take his money - agree with him that he has a "chance" of winning his case and go along with it until the club/council/referees association make an offer.....or till the matter is dealt with in the courts.

Best of my knowledge from my footballing days - we paid annual subscriptions/insurance to the club - which covered us in the event of injury/loss of earnings etc.....so my first point of contact would be the club.

To the best of my memory that insurance only covered medical costs associated with the injury, not loss of earnings, my mates used to get seperate private insurance for that.

kippy

This is the kinda stuff I hate to see - despite it only being a "pretend" situation.
Speaking from a completely NON legal standpoint here.......

There is only one person to "blame" here and that is the person themselves. Ultimately they make the decision whether to play the game or not, no one forced them out on the pitch.

If they wish to partake in a contact sport on a regular basis where injuries are known to occur they SHOULD ensure that they themselves are adequately insured to cover what they would expect to be covered SHOULD they get an injury (for whatever reason) that requires them to take time off work.

If you have a situation whereby a case goes before the courts and player gets costs and compensation due to someone making a decision about the pitch what would happen is sporting areas closed off to the public for vast tracts of the year and rightly so.

We've had enough completely over the top reactions to court cases that would be similiar to this and to be honest I would hope it never go down this route. The only winners would be solicitors to be honest.

Sorry, I know it is legal discussion, but thats my opinion.

Staff Sergeant

I appreciate the replies to date.

Some Council supplied pitches are very badly kept and maintained by the Council, sometimes they may not be in a position to keep a pitch in good repair, yet they will charge a club full price for annual use of that pitch. Disregarding the continued complaints of the club as to the state of the pitch and repeated requests for an alternative pitch.

Just to add that some Council pitches are brilliantly kept.

PCPhoto

kippy wrote: »

This is the kinda stuff I hate to see - despite it only being a "pretend" situation.
Speaking from a completely NON legal standpoint here.......

There is only one person to "blame" here and that is the person themselves. Ultimately they make the decision whether to play the game or not, no one forced them out on the pitch.

If they wish to partake in a contact sport on a regular basis where injuries are known to occur they SHOULD ensure that they themselves are adequately insured to cover what they would expect to be covered SHOULD they get an injury (for whatever reason) that requires them to take time off work.

If you have a situation whereby a case goes before the courts and player gets costs and compensation due to someone making a decision about the pitch what would happen is sporting areas closed off to the public for vast tracts of the year and rightly so.

We've had enough completely over the top reactions to court cases that would be similiar to this and to be honest I would hope it never go down this route. The only winners would be solicitors to be honest.

Sorry, I know it is legal discussion, but thats my opinion.

I totally agree with you and the amount of people looking for "easy money" is scary - like most sections of society today..... they never blame themselves.

yes - in theory the person who is injured due to bad maintenance of a council pitch has a case but you would have to prove non maintenance ..... it would be very easy for a solicitor to turn around and say that if the person did not play the injury would not have happened ...so there is blame on the person...limited liability, the person choose to play - knowing the condition of the pitch .... so its an uphill struggle from there.

HarryPotter41

Staff Sergeant wrote: »

I appreciate the replies to date.

Some Council supplied pitches are very badly kept and maintained by the Council, sometimes they may not be in a position to keep a pitch in good repair, yet they will charge a club full price for annual use of that pitch. Disregarding the continued complaints of the club as to the state of the pitch and repeated requests for an alternative pitch.

Just to add that some Council pitches are brilliantly kept.

If the club are that worried about the condition of the pitch surely they could take some time to try and maintain the pitch to some sort of standard themselves, in the way that clubs who own their own pitches have to.

MagicSean

I think the hardest part of this case would be proving the state of the pitch caused the injury.

Lawstud

kippy wrote: »

This is the kinda stuff I hate to see - despite it only being a "pretend" situation.
Speaking from a completely NON legal standpoint here.......

There is only one person to "blame" here and that is the person themselves. Ultimately they make the decision whether to play the game or not, no one forced them out on the pitch.

If they wish to partake in a contact sport on a regular basis where injuries are known to occur they SHOULD ensure that they themselves are adequately insured to cover what they would expect to be covered SHOULD they get an injury (for whatever reason) that requires them to take time off work.

If you have a situation whereby a case goes before the courts and player gets costs and compensation due to someone making a decision about the pitch what would happen is sporting areas closed off to the public for vast tracts of the year and rightly so.

We've had enough completely over the top reactions to court cases that would be similiar to this and to be honest I would hope it never go down this route. The only winners would be solicitors to be honest.

Sorry, I know it is legal discussion, but thats my opinion.

^ This

I totally agree with you and the amount of people looking for "easy money" is scary - like most sections of society today..... they never blame themselves.

yes - in theory the person who is injured due to bad maintenance of a council pitch has a case but you would have to prove non maintenance ..... it would be very easy for a solicitor to turn around and say that if the person did not play the injury would not have happened ...so there is blame on the person...limited liability, the person choose to play - knowing the condition of the pitch .... so its an uphill struggle from there.

^This.

This thread = so much fail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_sABor77E&feature=related

kippy

Lawstud wrote: »

^ This



^This.

This thread = so much fail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_sABor77E&feature=related

Well in fairness it is in the "Legal Discussion" forum, so I suspect the OP is just looking for the "legal" side of it. Not so much a failure of the thread.
There obviously is a legal side to it and one suspects in some cases people would go looking to blame others via a legal route.

crucamim

Staff Sergeant wrote: »

Hi,

What if, a young man with a good job was playing football for his club on a weekend, and was unfortunate enough to get injured during the game causing a serious injury to part of his leg which required the leg to be immobilised and the use of crutches for 6 weeks, and then surgery was required to fix the injury. All the while this young man was out of work.

If the young man considered that the pitch his injury occurred on was unplayable at the time of the injury occurring, who should pay the medical costs, and who would be liable for costs in this pretend scenario.

Are the individual players liable for themselves?

Are the clubs liable?

Is the Ref liable?

Is the council liable?

Presume the pitch is owned by the council.

Best regards

SS

If he were a member of the club, it would be difficult to sue the club as the law would regard that as a case of him suing himself. For this reason, amateur sports organiations tend to have a rule that one must be a member as a condition of participation. Such organisations are usually not strict about enforcement of the rule but it protects them from litigation. Nevertheless, it leaves officals of the club liable out of their own pockets. Officials of any voluntary organisation, who act outside the rules of the organiation, do so at considerable risk to themselves. The club officer who breaks the rules of his organisation by allowing a non-member to play for the club team is an idiot.

The injured footballer could sue the council in the tort of negligence but can he prove that the council was negligent? And, if the footballer had believed the pitch to be unplayable, why did he play? There would be a case of contributory negligence which would reduce the compensation payable. Far worse, he could be held to have gone voluntarily to a known danger which would mean that he would receive no compensation.

He could sue the opposing player but only if the opposing player were to blame. The footballer, who inflicts injury when, within the rules of the game, contesting possession of the ball is blameless - both in criminal law and also in civil law. Injurly inflicted by a "professional foul" (which involves physical contact outside the rules of the game) would render the offender liable. e.g. Hand-tripping an opponent in a gaelic football or soccer match and causing one's opponent an injury would be actionable. Doing so in a rugby match (to an opponent in possession of the ball) would be an entirely different matter. Punching an opponent on the jaw in a boxing match and causing injury would not render one liable - unless one struck the blow between rounds. [When the Manchester United goal-keeper advances from his penalty area and rugby tackles an opponent, he is committing a criminal offence.]

What about the referee? There is caselaw from a rugby union match (in England in the 1990s) which established that the referee has a duty of care to the players. But that is a duty of only reasonable care. Was the injury caused by the persistent failure of the referee to enforce the rules of the game? If so, there would be a case - if evidence is available.

Perhaps the faiure of the referee to declare the pitch unplayable would constitute negligence. Can the injured footballer prove that the pitch was unplayable? The onus of proof rests on the party who alleges breach of the duty of care.

Playing competitive sport without insurance cover is the behaviour of an idiot.

Delancey

Perhaps a tad off-topic but regarding Insurance for sporting injuries ; my sister suffered a serious dental injury in a hockey match some years ago - she required a lot of expensive dental work to repair the damage and when she went to claim off the clubs so-called comprehensive insurance she found it was a joke and ultimately only received a fraction of the costs.
My sister ended up marrying the dentist so I guess he forgave the debt

kippy

delancey42 wrote: »

Perhaps a tad off-topic but regarding Insurance for sporting injuries ; my sister suffered a serious dental injury in a hockey match some years ago - she required a lot of expensive dental work to repair the damage and when she went to claim off the clubs so-called comprehensive insurance she found it was a joke and ultimately only received a fraction of the costs.
My sister ended up marrying the dentist so I guess he forgave the debt

I think it is only when people need to claim under ANY insurance type they realise they type of cover they thought they were paying for was grossly above the type of cover they actually receive.
That can be said for many differerent types of insurance sadly.

Due to recent issues myself I am seriously asking myself why I am paying a significant amount of my wages towards health insurance for example.

Reloc8

Sorry can we have a new rule in legal forum, together with that prohibiting legal advice being sought which prohibits judgmental bull**** ?

drkpower

Reloc8 wrote: »

Sorry can we have a new rule in legal forum, together with that prohibiting legal advice being sought which prohibits judgmental bull**** ?

Of course not; the derision of one's peers is an important factor in reducing the number of spurious claims being brought, and particularly those where grown adults like to escape all responsibility by pretending they are incapable of appreciating the inherent risks in the activities they choose to pursue.

HarryPotter41

delancey42 wrote: »

Perhaps a tad off-topic but regarding Insurance for sporting injuries ; my sister suffered a serious dental injury in a hockey match some years ago - she required a lot of expensive dental work to repair the damage and when she went to claim off the clubs so-called comprehensive insurance she found it was a joke and ultimately only received a fraction of the costs.
My sister ended up marrying the dentist so I guess he forgave the debt

Jesus, must have been a big debt when she went as far as marrying him

On a serious note, in my time involved in Schoolboys Soccer we discovered completely by accident that the insurers had removed dental work from the insurance cover provided, they did this without informing the League. As dental work is often the most needed treatment in Soccer it caused consternation, so I am not the least bit surprised that what you say happened. All clubs should check their policies closely to see exactly whats covered.

jimbooth

My sis in law injured her ankle during soccer training and has had months of various treatments for it, as a result she cannot work for the time being as she has to have intensive physio for the forseeable future and has lost her temporary job which she was in at the time as the contract was up and couldnt renew due to her injury.
She had paid her insurance and was told that they would pay the difference in her loss of earnings and even got her to send in her previous 6months pay-slips but then turned around and said that they only covered medical expenses...why then did they need her pay-slips?
She has had no direct contact with the insurance company, it has all gone through her coach.
Has she anywhere to go from here?

Delancey

Your Sister-In -Law should for a start take over her own case and not do it through a 3rd party. Well-meaning though her coach may be it is also possible he is incompetent in these matters.
She should get a copy of the insurance policy in force at the time of her injury and check what benefits she is entitled to , she should deal with the company direct and if she feels they are ' stiffing ' her then consider taking it to the Insurance Ombudsman.
As I already mentioned my sister got sweet fxxk all from her club insurance and I gather this is an all-too-common occurence.

marksnotlost

This thread disgusts me

> you play football or any other activity and you know the risks.

> sewing someone will set a precedent for the next guy who wants easy money

> you missed a week of work. boo-hoo get over it !

its because of people like this that game organisers and event promoters have such barriers to cross, its no wonder there are less and less activities for young people to do

This country is slowly loosing its craic as everyone now runs the risk of someone like yourself coming after THEIR money.

The industry im in is at risk and some companies are closing down because of this.

If you take this to court im sure you will get money off somebody.