Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jovan Belcher exhumed for concussion exam

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Blart
    replied
    There's no mention of this story on the NFL.com website. At all.


    Scared much Goodell?

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoMan4ever
    replied
    Originally posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
    He had twice the legal limit of alcohol in his blood at autopsy. He put a bullet through his brain. Said mangled and drunk brain has been decomposing for a year. But some lawyer will find an "expert" witness who will testify that microscopic evidence of CTE is present in the brain, and therefore entitled to monetary award. The new American Dream.
    This is going to become the new insanity plea for the justice system. It's not my fault I killed and then chopped up 37 bodies, I have CTE

    Leave a comment:


  • ColoradoDarin
    replied
    Originally posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
    What happens if you play NFL football without a helmet?

    uh, I would die on the field...

    So you participate in a sport that requires a helmet just to keep you alive during play, and you didn't realize that might be bad for your brain?

    uh, nope

    Sounds legit.
    And player are even college educated (except for Alabamans)

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBuff
    replied
    rugbythug, you no doubt noticed the mental element in the above-stated definition centers on negligence, or, UN-intentional conduct.

    It should be said here that in the event of an INTENTIONAL infliction of injury, the injuring party has few if any defenses (save mutual consent to sports/activities whose objective is to injure, e.g. boxing). If an NFL player intentionally injures another player, in most states he could be held liable for damages, guilty of a crime. The problem of course is that we cannot read minds, and thus the liar's loophole (aka tatumastinglitis).

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBuff
    replied
    Reasonably Implied Assumption of Risk (RIAR) Volenti non fit injuria.
    Assumption of Risk

    A defense in law. Consists of facts and evidence offered by a party against whom proceedings have been instituted to diminish a plaintiff's Cause of Action or defeat recovery to an action in Negligence, which entails proving that the plaintiff knew of a dangerous condition and voluntarily exposed himself or herself to it.

    In its principal sense, assumption of the risk signifies that the plaintiff, in advance, has consented to relieve the defendant of an obligation of conduct toward him or her and to take a chance of injury from a known risk ensuing from what the defendant is to do or leave undone. The consequence is that the defendant is unburdened of all legal duty to the plaintiff and, therefore, cannot be held liable in negligence.

    A second situation occurs when the plaintiff voluntarily enters into some relation with the defendant, knowing that the defendant will not safeguard the plaintiff against the risk. The plaintiff can then be viewed as tacitly or implicitly consenting to the negligence, as in the case of riding in a car with knowledge that the steering apparatus is defective, which relieves the defendant of the duty that would ordinarily exist.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pony Boy
    replied
    Yes you guessed it, PETA is suing these guys ......... for hunting jack rabbits.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Broncenstein
    replied
    Originally posted by rugbythug View Post
    My question for the lawyers in the audience. Why can't injured players sue the guy who hurt them? This would be a cleaner line of action.
    You should ask anyone who has been injured by an uninsured driver, especially an illegal alien. It rhymes with money.

    Leave a comment:


  • rugbythug
    replied
    My question for the lawyers in the audience. Why can't injured players sue the guy who hurt them? This would be a cleaner line of action.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Broncenstein
    replied
    Originally posted by Kaylore View Post
    You guys don't get it. Since Tort reform, these lawyers have to find numbers now. They can't just milk one suit anymore. They need to leave no stone un-turned.
    That's very punny.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kaylore
    replied
    You guys don't get it. Since Tort reform, these lawyers have to find numbers now. They can't just milk one suit anymore. They need to leave no stone un-turned.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Broncenstein
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBuff View Post
    Hahahaha! Hahahaha!

    B-Gary, it's a fake insult ... see, earlier this year the DSM-V eliminated psychopath and sociopath completely ... they don't exist anymore. Very clever of the Doctor ... he just wanted to poke me, not offend.

    Now if he'd said, "you have to suffer from a diagnosable acute form of Antisocial Personality Disorder to be a trial lawyer" ... now them wouldda been fighting words.
    There is a significant overlap between the antisocial personality disorder and the redeeming qualities that define a successful trial lawyer.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBuff
    replied
    Originally posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
    Yes.

    Which pretty much means you have to be a sociopath to be a trial lawyer.
    Hahahaha ... hahahaha!

    B-Gary, it's a fake insult! You see, earlier this year the DSM-V eliminated psychopath and sociopath completely ... they don't exist anymore. Very clever of the Doctor ... he just wanted to poke me, not offend.

    Now if he'd said, "you have to suffer from a diagnosable acute form of Antisocial Personality Disorder to be a trial lawyer" ... now them wouldda been fighting words.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr. Broncenstein
    replied
    What happens if you play NFL football without a helmet?

    uh, I would die on the field...

    So you participate in a sport that requires a helmet just to keep you alive during play, and you didn't realize that might be bad for your brain?

    uh, nope

    Sounds legit.

    Leave a comment:


  • B-Large
    replied
    Originally posted by Kid A View Post
    Or a family that suffered an incredibly painful tragedy wants all the answers and understanding of what happened that they can get?

    If anything, the article sounds like the medical people involved ****ed up by not doing this the first time around, or at least offering the option.






    Just like any case like this, the victims and families deserve to have all causes investigated. With all the mitigating factors, I doubt they'd get a "big payday" out of this.

    The knee-jerk hatred of any investigation that might lead to a billion dollar sports league (that has profited greatly on guys destroying their brains) having to pay out something is weird to me. Whether the NFL is or isn't held responsible in court is another thing, but without the recent legal backlash over CTE, I don't believe the league would be stepping up concussion safety like it has. If Belcher had CTE, his family fully deserves to know and be part of the ongoing discussion surrounding it and the NFL.
    Excellent Post- The family has to think about raising that child as well, that might be the biggest motivation for this.

    As sson as the NFL knew about CTE or other brain disease they should have come out and been deliberate about the risks... this is what you get when you chose to decieve deliberatly like the NFL has done.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncogary
    replied
    Originally posted by Dr. Broncenstein View Post
    Yes.

    Which pretty much means you have to be a sociopath to be a trial lawyer.
    BroncoBuff?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X