The "strong arm" wins lawsuit against helmet maker Riddell

[aurorasooner]

We see this guy on TV ads all the time in the Denver area. http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2013/04/14/frank-azar-wins-11-million-lawsuit.html Here are some quotes from the article and the whole article is at the above web address.

"Azar, who promotes himself heavily as "the Strong Arm" in his TV ads, said Riddell's percentage of the damages is still being worked out, and that Riddell will appeal the verdict, so Ridolfi won't be getting the money anytime soon."
"But because the jury found that Riddell failed to warn players wearing their helmets about the dangers of concussions, the verdict could affect "thousands of pending individual cases," Azar said.
"It's huge. It's a billion-dollar case for Riddell. I don't know why they tried it," he said."
"Riddell set this phony-baloney standard about concussion risk," he said. "If they had told the truth, and said, 'You have a 50 percent chance of getting a concussion with this helmet,' what mother or father would let their kid play football in a Riddell helmet? And you can still buy this helmet today."
Riddell is the official helmet supplier to the National Football League.
In July 2012, thousands of retired NFL players filed a personal-injury class action lawsuit in Philadelphia against the NFL and Riddell over brain injuries affecting retired players.

[badger]

Do seat belts come with a warning that says "You have a 50 percent chance of still getting injury even if you wear me, even higher if you're a reckless, bad driver?"

[okiewaker]

Yep,,Ali should definitely sue Everlast.

[aurorasooner]

Read a couple of more interesting facts presented today in the Denver Post,
"The rest of the award will not be paid, as Ridolfi's high school coaches, who were found negligent, have governmental immunity, said Azar."----I don't really understand how high school coaches could be found ""negligent in this situation unless they they put this kid at risk by something such as putting him back in the game (or practice) after he had been injured previously which may have caused a worse injury or perhaps using sub-standard helmets to cut costs, etc, and why were they offered "governmental immunity"? The article did say that jury determined that the Riddell helmet was not defective in any way.
Don't get me wrong here as I've never been a fan of Azar and most certainly haven't been since back about 10 or 12 years ago he was supposedly arrested somewhere in the Hampden/University or Colorado Blvd area during rush hour for supposedly driving under the influence and then leaving his car and trying to evade the cops on foot thru Welshire golf course. (if my memory serves me correctly which it may not since it's probably been over a decade ago).

[prrriiide]

I don't really understand how high school coaches could be found ""negligent in this situation unless they they put this kid at risk by something such as putting him back in the game (or practice) after he had been injured previously

One size doesn't fit all with these helmets. They are adjusted and inflated in some cases to fit each individual player. If the coaches didn't do that, then they were negligent, because an ill-fitting helmet is more likely to cause a concussion.

[Midtowner]

It looks like the damages come from not properly warning players about the risks and dangers of concussions. Considering NFL veterans, etc., are also suing, perhaps there's something there? Then again, it could be reduced or dismissed on appeal.

[budbarrybob]

This isn't for a second to help players. It's a money grab from a family and lawyer to sue a corporation. EVERYONE knows the risks of playing football at any level. 50% chance of getting a concussion? Bulls..t! If that were true then half of all players would be on the DL with concussions.

[Midtowner]

This isn't for a second to help players. It's a money grab from a family and lawyer to sue a corporation. EVERYONE knows the risks of playing football at any level. 50% chance of getting a concussion? Bulls..t! If that were true then half of all players would be on the DL with concussions.

Neither of us knows the full facts of the case, so neither of us can say with any authority who is entitled to what or how Riddell failed to warn. I've tried to find a story which takes an honest and legalistic approach to explaining the liability, but haven't found anything yet.

But the money grab thing, just no. Are the family's attorneys getting paid here? Sure. I'm assuming you get paid to do your job as well? What do you think it cost these attorneys to go to federal court with major corporate interests in a complex civil products liability lawsuit against a major corporation with millions at stake? A $3MM award sounds great if you get 1/3 of it (or whatever they got), but once you factor in the salaries of associates and paralegals, expert witnesses who are going to have expensive fees in a case like this, there's not going to be a lot of profit left there after a $1MM fee.

As for the coaches, as employees of the state, they enjoy sovereign immunity for acts which are within the scope of their job (note, I'm saying what the law in Oklahoma is, I have no idea about Colorado). The sole remedy there is through the governmental tort claims act and I'm kind of doubtful (but I've never tried it) that you can bootstrap a governmental tort claims act case to a products liability case.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

The biggest problem here is that the coaches were found immune. Back when I played, the only kids who got stuff that actually fit were the first 10 or so starters. From that point on, it was a crapshoot to get something close to being the correct size. I remember as a sophomore being given a choice between a helmet that was 2 sizes to small or one that was 3 sizes to big. Up until that point, I'd always used my own personal Bike Airlight (or somesuch) and just told them I'd use that. I was told no because of liability to using that one or to me buying a new helmet for the school that fit me.

I distinctly remember that season being one long migraine. It hurt for someone to pat me on the helmet, much less hit someone.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I wonder if they'll now go after shoulder pad manufacturers because of stingers (which almost all of them are because of a design flaw in the way they put all the force on that shoulder nerve).

[jkjsooner]

Do seat belts come with a warning that says "You have a 50 percent chance of still getting injury even if you wear me, even higher if you're a reckless, bad driver?"

Or better, "You have a 50 percent chance of still getting injured if you wear me, so if you don't like it don't wear me and you'll have a 90% chance of getting injured."

This is ridiculous. Everyone knows you can get concussions. Unless there was something fishing going like Riddell falsifying concussion data or vastly overstating their effectiveness then this should be thrown out.

Clearly the helmet manafacturers are trying their hardest to make their helmets as safe as possible. They'd love to have a safer helmet than the competitor. Frankly, one school of thought is that modern helmets make football less safe because those wearing them feel invincible. That's like blaming the seat belt manafacturer because a moron drives 100 mph thinking the seat belt will protect him.

[badger]

Back when I played, the only kids who got stuff that actually fit were the first 10 or so starters. From that point on, it was a crapshoot to get something close to being the correct size.

Yeah, about the same thing happened to me yearly in track. I was tiny and was subjected to an XL jersey because girls like tiny jerseys and sh!t. You had to know exactly when uniform handout began AND be an upperclassman to get what you wanted

It's probably even worse in football, where equipment is more expensive and harder to fit than a little running jersey.

[Curly Bill]

Maybe the downfall of football won't be when the medical issues get the best of it, but when no one is willing to subject themselves to lawsuits by making the equipment for it???

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Yeah, about the same thing happened to me yearly in track. I was tiny and was subjected to an XL jersey because girls like tiny jerseys and sh!t. You had to know exactly when uniform handout began AND be an upperclassman to get what you wanted

It's probably even worse in football, where equipment is more expensive and harder to fit than a little running jersey.

We ALWAYS had new jerseys and pants (which all fit). However, there were 67 kids playing football and exactly 79 helmets to fit them. I remember one kid took a helmet that looked like it was from the 60s just because he wanted one that fit (super long 2 bar facemask and all).

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Maybe the downfall of football won't be when the medical issues get the best of it, but when no one is willing to subject themselves to lawsuits by making the equipment for it???

Here are the problems that I see:

1. Riddell has generally made 4-5 tiers of football helmets. From el cheapo school variety to the much more expensive ones with more bells and whistles. I wouldn't be surprised if what the court nailed them on was the el cheapo version. When I played they had 3 types -> the foam squeezer (it was round which meant it squeezed the front and back of your head while being 2 inches off the side of your head), the square hair remover (filled with 2x2 foam squares that were all the same size - there was one that would hit your head 1/2 way between your forehead and the crown and would almost rub it bald) and the very comfortable air pumped helmets (of which there were several stages). All of these were approved by the OSSA, but the first 2 would cost under $100 and the last 3 started at $200 and went up (compared with a Bike which started at $100). So the schools had 50 cheapos and 20 expensive ones for their better players.

2. The cheapos were just horrendously designed and caused people to get into bad habits which resulted in injury. Like it or not, you hit people in the way that brings you the least amount of pain. This meant that even when their gear improved, they still hit like with bad form. For me it was especially jarring since I'd always had my own helmet. I went from hitting people with form to being totally gunshy about hitting with the helmet because it felt like someone was hammering a spike between my eyes. I started using my shoulder more and ended up with stingers on every 10th hit.

3. Not one helmet I had addressed the problem of getting earholed. It was a thin layer that left your ear ringing anytime anyone hit you on the side of the head.

The reason that 20 year old gear is relevant is that it is what the people suing were using when they played.

[Curly Bill]

I understand the impropriety of using old gear, and it would be certainly be nice if all schools could afford the top of the line equipment. Thing is if a suit is brought and successful because the gear is too old, or inferior, it's only a matter of time before the new and top of the line gear is also a target for our overly litigious society.

But, it's not just football equipment - we make it hard for anyone to do business these days.

[olevetonahill]

how is it the makers fault, if the schools are the ones choosing to not buy the Quality helmets needed?
Sounds more like the School/coaches fault to me.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I understand the impropriety of using old gear, and it would be certainly be nice if all schools could afford the top of the line equipment. Thing is if a suit is brought and successful because the gear is too old, or inferior, it's only a matter of time before the new and top of the line gear is also a target for our overly litigious society.

But, it's not just football equipment - we make it hard for anyone to do business these days.

First off, safety equipment during the 80s sucked. This isn't limited to football, it was for pretty much everything. Everything was half-designed because companies were willing to make a profit on it but they weren't willing to do it right because the people making the products had never used safety equipment (and had laid on vats of mercury for gods sake). It wasn't until the children of the 70s/80s got started designing products that they got much much safer in a short amount of time. Think about it, no one wore a bike helmet in the 80s, but most of those kids made their kids wear bike helmets. As I told my kids, "Yes, they are stupid, but bouncing your skull off of pavement sucks. Oh and riding a bike on ice is both incredibly fun and stupid at the same time".

That is why I think this is more of a reach back into that lazy safety past than it is about the safety of current designs. I'd liken it more to mesilthelioma (sp?) than anything.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

how is it the makers fault, if the schools are the ones choosing to not buy the Quality helmets needed?
Sounds more like the School/coaches fault to me.

Honestly its a 1/2 and 1/2 situation. You as a company are liable if you put something unsafe on the market (unless you are Monsanto). The problem here is that the judge made the schools immune from prosecution (which is a bunch of crap).

[Midtowner]

The manufacturer has a duty to warn of the consequences of use or misuse. If a manufacturer doesn't warn of the consequences of misuse or use, they can be held liable. Juries have gone both ways on this issue and our courts will figure it out eventually. It's a very fine line to walk here. Yes, helmet manufacturers should be liable for not warning about certain things, e.g., warning against using helmets that don't fit, using old and unsafe gear, etc. Helmet makers need to also know and do something about a sport which until just very recently, encouraged players to use their helmet as a weapon to strike with. On the other hand, it is a dangerous sport and if kids choose to play it, some are going to end up hurt even if they are using the best equipment perfectly fitted and not even misusing it.

These lawsuits will have an impact on the football gear industry to help them start actively encouraging a culture of safety. They'll be out there warning kids and parents about the consequences of wearing the wrong equipment. They'll be going to coaching clinics and doing outreach because the courts will have made it profitable for them to do so. Outside of bringing in onerous federal and/or state regulation, products liability suits are the only way to force these company's hand. In fact, I much prefer lawsuits to additional federal or state regulation.

[Midtowner]

Suits like these have been filed against Riddell for a long time now. It appears they figure it's just part of the cost of doing business.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19761013&id=0O8vAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gV0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6349,4025045

So the next time you buy a helmet made of cheap plastic and foam and whatnot, this is why it's $200.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Except for the minor fact that they can do all of those things and school administrators totally ignore them and kids get hurt. Where can the kids go to force a school administrator's hand? I mean that whole immune from prosecution thing is idiotic.

[Midtowner]

They need to go to their state legislators and ask that their tort claims act be amended to allow for the prosecution of school officials who are operating in their official capacity, knowingly place players at grave risk (or something like that) or at minimum, maybe organizations like the OSSA can maybe stop paying so much attention to making sure private schools don't win championships and the "everyone gets a trophy" BS they're doing in 6A, and instead regulate equipment and player safety.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Never going to happen. Education Lobby is way too strong to allow anything like that to pass.

[Curly Bill]

Make it easy to sue school teachers/coaches/administrators so we can have even more lawsuits, and even less people attracted to the profession? No thanks! In fact we should make it harder to sue most everyone in most every capacity.

[Midtowner]

Make it easy to sue school teachers/coaches/administrators so we can have even more lawsuits, and even less people attracted to the profession? No thanks! In fact we should make it harder to sue most everyone in most every capacity.

So you want to make it easier to hurt someone else and get away with it?

I thought you were in favor of personal responsibility?

[budbarrybob]

Midtowner, I'd bet all my remaining vCash that you're a lawyer. I'm not saying that all lawsuits are frivolous and that lawyers shouldn't get paid. I understand that bringing a case to trial has expenses that somewhat offset the money collected in a suit. Where lawyers and their clients get a "rolls eyes" are when they sue for an ungodly amount and for ridiculous things. Which happens all the time. So yeah. This case is about money (unless they end up not asking for any - HAHA) and the family trying to reach out and get some that they didn't earn. If you think that its not then you are just fooling yourself. Just like the lawsuit from the Jackson family sueing AEG company for $40 Billion. Yeah I'm sure AEG was a direct contributor or even indirect to his death. What a friggin joke. But hey maybe we'll get to find out the paternity of the Jackson "kids"... rolls eyes...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Midtowner, I'd bet all my remaining vCash that you're a lawyer. I'm not saying that all lawsuits are frivolous and that lawyers shouldn't get paid. I understand that bringing a case to trial has expenses that somewhat offset the money collected in a suit. Where lawyers and their clients get a "rolls eyes" are when they sue for an ungodly amount and for ridiculous things. Which happens all the time. So yeah. This case is about money (unless they end up not asking for any - HAHA) and the family trying to reach out and get some that they didn't earn. If you think that its not then you are just fooling yourself. Just like the lawsuit from the Jackson family sueing AEG company for $40 Billion. Yeah I'm sure AEG was a direct contributor or even indirect to his death. What a friggin joke. But hey maybe we'll get to find out the paternity of the Jackson "kids"... rolls eyes...

So in this particular case, you are saying that a company who provides safety equipment for a sport has no liability when the safety equipment doesn't keep one safe while playing the sport at a normal level? I mean you are okay with a brake company selling brakes that may not work in optimum conditions? This may be about the money for the plaintiff, but Riddell went into this market eyes wide open and put a crappy product out there. I daresay the Dalcon shield case had been tried by this time.

//Not a lawyer

[Midtowner]

Where lawyers and their clients get a "rolls eyes" are when they sue for an ungodly amount and for ridiculous things.

And what if a jury of 12 folks who walked in knowing nothing about the case, being instructed by the judge in the law and listening to the facts from both sides, from experts from both sides renders a verdict which you, the person reading about it in an article on the internet, having not listened to the experts, having no idea what the law is or what the legal duties of manufacturers are to warn, etc., of the two, who is in a better position to decide what is an "ungodly amount"?

It's those occasional ungodly amounts which throw off the actuarial calculus on exactly how much it costs to put out products which kill and maim people. You may remember the famous Ford Pinto case where Ford knew that for around $15, they could fix the bumper, but with a $15/car higher profit, they knew x number of people would be burned and y would die and that the cost to settle those cases would be something in the neighborhood of Z. The jury in that case sent Ford a message with one of those ungodly jury verdicts and forever changed the world of automobile safety.


Which happens all the time. So yeah. This case is about money (unless they end up not asking for any - HAHA) and the family trying to reach out and get some that they didn't earn.

Their child's brain has been injured. That's worth money in terms of what it costs to treat and that child's lost opportunities in the future, pain and suffering, etc. I'll bet the family and yourself would differ on who earned what.


If you think that its not then you are just fooling yourself. Just like the lawsuit from the Jackson family sueing AEG company for $40 Billion. Yeah I'm sure AEG was a direct contributor or even indirect to his death. What a friggin joke. But hey maybe we'll get to find out the paternity of the Jackson "kids"... rolls eyes...

I don't know anything about that case, but they can sue for what they want. They still have to convince a jury that $40 billion is the right number. I don't know anything about the case, so who am I to say that's too much or too little?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

It's those occasional ungodly amounts which throw off the actuarial calculus on exactly how much it costs to put out products which kill and maim people. You may remember the famous Ford Pinto case where Ford knew that for around $15, they could fix the bumper, but with a $15/car higher profit, they knew x number of people would be burned and y would die and that the cost to settle those cases would be something in the neighborhood of Z. The jury in that case sent Ford a message with one of those ungodly jury verdicts and forever changed the world of automobile safety.

Personally, this is one of the issues that I have with the system. Companies like Riddell could statistically model exactly what a person's concussion chances were with their product (just like Ford did). However, they never will because it would be admissible in court and they would get taken to the cleaners. I'd be open for some kind of limited protection for running/publishing these numbers in that they couldn't be used in court unless they were proven to be woefully optimistic (like saying 1 death in 1,000,000 and actuals were 1 in 1,000).

[ashley]

The biggest problem here is that the coaches were found immune. Back when I played, the only kids who got stuff that actually fit were the first 10 or so starters. From that point on, it was a crapshoot to get something close to being the correct size. I remember as a sophomore being given a choice between a helmet that was 2 sizes to small or one that was 3 sizes to big. Up until that point, I'd always used my own personal Bike Airlight (or somesuch) and just told them I'd use that. I was told no because of liability to using that one or to me buying a new helmet for the school that fit me.

I distinctly remember that season being one long migraine. It hurt for someone to pat me on the helmet, much less hit someone.

Where the hell did you play? I call BS. I coached for forty years and never once saw anything close to what you say.

[olevetonahill]

Where the hell did you play? I call BS. I coached for forty years and never once saw anything close to what you say.

Calling JKM a liar aint the way to win friends and influence people .
Where in hell did YOU coach?

[aurorasooner]

I understand the impropriety of using old gear, and it would be certainly be nice if all schools could afford the top of the line equipment. Thing is if a suit is brought and successful because the gear is too old, or inferior, it's only a matter of time before the new and top of the line gear is also a target for our overly litigious society.

But, it's not just football equipment - we make it hard for anyone to do business these days. It'll be interesting to see if such lawsuits force the smaller and/or less financially solvent high-schools and jr. highs to completely stop playing football or shift the financial burden on families to provide the current approved equipment for their kids. I'll also be interesting to see if the families of the better football athletes (those with a possibility of getting a scholarship at the college level) who live in these smaller cities will move to larger metro area schools which have the ability to provide their athletes with modern approved football equipment.
Also it'll probably increase sales of the football equipment manufacturers as all of the schools will probably get rid of their outdated older equipment and replace them with new modern more expensive equipment. Even the less athletically gifted players and the beginners in the programs (HS sophs or Jr. High 7th graders) probably won't just get the hand-me-down equipment in the future but will get as good of equipment as the starters. (which I am all for).
When I was playing the game the HS starters only got the best most modern equipment, followed by the rest, and then the Jr. High players got the HS hand-me-downs with the best of the HS leftovers going to the best Jr. High players. Hell in my HS Jr. and Sr. years we had both game and practice helmets and shoulder pads, and even a couple of pair of Kangaroo light weight game shoes along with 2 or 3 pairs of practice cleats, a half a dozen or so chin straps of different designs and even daily freshly washed t-shirts to wear under our shoulder pads (they actually didn't stink which we thought was the greatest). We knocked the snot out of each other in practice for 3 days a week in practice and I can't remember anyone getting severely injured (severely meaning paralyzed). Sure we had our share of broken arms, legs, and bad hip pointers, but luckily nothing that wouldn't heal.

[ashley]

Calling JKM a liar aint the way to win friends and influence people .
Where in hell did YOU coach?

Houston area.

[Midtowner]

Personally, this is one of the issues that I have with the system. Companies like Riddell could statistically model exactly what a person's concussion chances were with their product (just like Ford did). However, they never will because it would be admissible in court and they would get taken to the cleaners. I'd be open for some kind of limited protection for running/publishing these numbers in that they couldn't be used in court unless they were proven to be woefully optimistic (like saying 1 death in 1,000,000 and actuals were 1 in 1,000).

That kind of memo would be what we in the legal world would call hella-admissible.

Damning evidence is the best kind. As I mentioned, Ford had a similar memo where they weighed the cost/benefit of the $15 fix vs. killing and maiming people.

I'd give the helmet industry the benefit of the doubt though. I don't think there's a fix possible which can make helmets perform better. Looking over Riddell's offerings though, I'm encouraged by some of their new sensor technology. If they could detect trauma which might cause minor damage, maybe the game could be better regulated?

[Midtowner]

It'll be interesting to see if such lawsuits force the smaller and/or less financially solvent high-schools and jr. highs to completely stop playing football or shift the financial burden on families to provide the current approved equipment for their kids..

I doubt it. These helmet lawsuits have been going on since the 1970s and as I mentioned, I can't think of a way to get a suit against a school properly before the court without them bouncing you on a sovereign immunity claim.

Maybe negligence of the coaches to properly outfit kids? It hasn't worked before to my knowledge.

I guess they're only receiving publicity now because the manufacturers might be pushing for civil tort immunity rather than improving their product or pushing for changes to the game.

[bluedogok]

Here are the problems that I see:

1. Riddell has generally made 4-5 tiers of football helmets. From el cheapo school variety to the much more expensive ones with more bells and whistles. I wouldn't be surprised if what the court nailed them on was the el cheapo version. When I played they had 3 types -> the foam squeezer (it was round which meant it squeezed the front and back of your head while being 2 inches off the side of your head), the square hair remover (filled with 2x2 foam squares that were all the same size - there was one that would hit your head 1/2 way between your forehead and the crown and would almost rub it bald) and the very comfortable air pumped helmets (of which there were several stages). All of these were approved by the OSSA, but the first 2 would cost under $100 and the last 3 started at $200 and went up (compared with a Bike which started at $100). So the schools had 50 cheapos and 20 expensive ones for their better players.

2. The cheapos were just horrendously designed and caused people to get into bad habits which resulted in injury. Like it or not, you hit people in the way that brings you the least amount of pain. This meant that even when their gear improved, they still hit like with bad form. For me it was especially jarring since I'd always had my own helmet. I went from hitting people with form to being totally gunshy about hitting with the helmet because it felt like someone was hammering a spike between my eyes. I started using my shoulder more and ended up with stingers on every 10th hit.

3. Not one helmet I had addressed the problem of getting earholed. It was a thin layer that left your ear ringing anytime anyone hit you on the side of the head.

The reason that 20 year old gear is relevant is that it is what the people suing were using when they played.
Just like motorcycle or car racing helmets there are different shapes and shell sizes for different sizes/shapes of heads. You also cannot use a helmet in most sanctioned events right now that is older than a Sell 2005 standard, in some of the professional classes you can't use one older than Snell 2010, this is because the foam stiffens up over time and the plastics of the shell become more brittle over time reducing the effectiveness of the helmet, safety harnesses have similar age/wear rules. Back when I played in 8th grade we had the equipment that was originally bought when the school opened 4 years earlier (1973) and it didn't fit that well but then nothing ever fit well. My motorcycle helmet at the time (open face) was much better than my football helmet.


The manufacturer has a duty to warn of the consequences of use or misuse. If a manufacturer doesn't warn of the consequences of misuse or use, they can be held liable. Juries have gone both ways on this issue and our courts will figure it out eventually. It's a very fine line to walk here. Yes, helmet manufacturers should be liable for not warning about certain things, e.g., warning against using helmets that don't fit, using old and unsafe gear, etc. Helmet makers need to also know and do something about a sport which until just very recently, encouraged players to use their helmet as a weapon to strike with. On the other hand, it is a dangerous sport and if kids choose to play it, some are going to end up hurt even if they are using the best equipment perfectly fitted and not even misusing it.

These lawsuits will have an impact on the football gear industry to help them start actively encouraging a culture of safety. They'll be out there warning kids and parents about the consequences of wearing the wrong equipment. They'll be going to coaching clinics and doing outreach because the courts will have made it profitable for them to do so. Outside of bringing in onerous federal and/or state regulation, products liability suits are the only way to force these company's hand. In fact, I much prefer lawsuits to additional federal or state regulation.
Have you looked at a helmet in a sporting goods store? There are many cautionary stickers on them, now over time some may have been peeled or torn off but I still think most people know the risks involved and choose to play anyway. I know that I would have if I would have had more ability (size would have helped) back in school.


It'll be interesting to see if such lawsuits force the smaller and/or less financially solvent high-schools and jr. highs to completely stop playing football or shift the financial burden on families to provide the current approved equipment for their kids. I'll also be interesting to see if the families of the better football athletes (those with a possibility of getting a scholarship at the college level) who live in these smaller cities will move to larger metro area schools which have the ability to provide their athletes with modern approved football equipment.
Also it'll probably increase sales of the football equipment manufacturers as all of the schools will probably get rid of their outdated older equipment and replace them with new modern more expensive equipment. Even the less athletically gifted players and the beginners in the programs (HS sophs or Jr. High 7th graders) probably won't just get the hand-me-down equipment in the future but will get as good of equipment as the starters. (which I am all for).
When I was playing the game the HS starters only got the best most modern equipment, followed by the rest, and then the Jr. High players got the HS hand-me-downs with the best of the HS leftovers going to the best Jr. High players. Hell in my HS Jr. and Sr. years we had both game and practice helmets and shoulder pads, and even a couple of pair of Kangaroo light weight game shoes along with 2 or 3 pairs of practice cleats, a half a dozen or so chin straps of different designs and even daily freshly washed t-shirts to wear under our shoulder pads (they actually didn't stink which we thought was the greatest). We knocked the snot out of each other in practice for 3 days a week in practice and I can't remember anyone getting severely injured (severely meaning paralyzed). Sure we had our share of broken arms, legs, and bad hip pointers, but luckily nothing that wouldn't heal.
Most pee-wee parents have to buy equipment, it surprises me that the schools haven't gone to making the parents buy more equipment since they have tried to move more of the costs onto them over the years.

[StoopTroup]

Houston area.

Were any of them small schools with zero budget? I know I experienced the same thing JKM did until I made Varsity in HS and even then...If you didn't start, lots of guys only got used equipment and were never issued anything new unless what they had was wore the hell out.

[swardboy]

I wore Riddell in the early '70's (daaaaang I'm old), and thought they were great helmets. In fact ours were exactly the same in appearance as Notre Dames new hats; clear acrylic with paint on the inside of the helmet. Boy they shined under the lights. We never had a single head injury incident my three years as a starter.

And the Riddell XP shoes were to die for . So lightweight kangaroo leather. As a punter I was in kickin' heaven.

[texaspokieokie]

When i was a kid in Okmulgee, most everyone rode a bike & there were no helmets. I don't remember any head injuries, but that was long ago.

I had 2 paper routes & finally had an accident on a motor scooter; broadsided by a car. (was my fault) Hit pretty hard with multiple injuries,
but none to my head.

I strongly feel that the main benefactors of bicycle helmets are the manufacturers.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

When i was a kid in Okmulgee, most everyone rode a bike & there were no helmets. I don't remember any head injuries, but that was long ago.

I had 2 paper routes & finally had an accident on a motor scooter; broadsided by a car. (was my fault) Hit pretty hard with multiple injuries,
but none to my head.

I strongly feel that the main benefactors of bicycle helmets are the manufacturers.

My experience was way different. I had a really bad concussion from the old ice incident up there (on a paper route in the winter). My brother got one pretty bad when he was riding his bike one handed carrying a frog and was hit by a car. Neighbor got one when we were doing "bike jousting" with brooms. Another got one when the homemade bike ramp (plywood + cinder block) collapsed as he was going up it.

Bike helmets are for stupid stuff. Kids + copious amounts of free time + bikes = Stupid stuff.

[C&CDean]

I've had so many bike/motorcycle accidents over my 55 years I can't even count them.

I've broken many, many bones in these wrecks. Hell, I broke 13 bones in one motorcycle wreck in the early 80's. I've broken multiple collar bones in bicycle wrecks, and even had a compound bennett's fracture and a collar bone on a skateboard wreck.

Never once has my head hit the ground, and the only time I did make contact with something with my head (motorcycle handlebars) I was racing and was wearing a helmet. Broke the helmet almost in half. Of course this was back in the early 70's and helmets were worthless. All of my other wrecks were without helmet.

I've been hit square in the head many times with baseballs, been hit in the face/head many times in fights and beatings from my pop, and I've had stitches in my head a couple times (fell out of a car, and pulled a loose cinder block off a wall I was climbing) but don't think I've ever had a concussion. Hell, I've only had maybe 4-5 headaches in my entire life. What's weird is that my brother, sister, and pop all suffer/suffered from migraines. Weird.

[KantoSooner]

Maybe the downfall of football won't be when the medical issues get the best of it, but when no one is willing to subject themselves to lawsuits by making the equipment for it???


1. Establish a holding company in a tax haven.
2. Contract to have the equipment made in, say, Pakistan
3. Use a straw company to import and distribute inside the US leaving it with only minimal profit to cover its operations.

If sued, let the straw company take the booboo and go bancrupt. Change the name and make minor design alterations, set up a new straw company. Start the game from 'go' again.

It might feel sleazy, but, after you review your bank statement from the deck of your beach house in Belize over a cold adult beverage, you'll feel better. If not, then Suzee, fresh in from your Hong Kong office can rub your neck for a while.

[Soonerwake]

I've had so many bike/motorcycle accidents over my 55 years I can't even count them.

I've broken many, many bones in these wrecks. Hell, I broke 13 bones in one motorcycle wreck in the early 80's. I've broken multiple collar bones in bicycle wrecks, and even had a compound bennett's fracture and a collar bone on a skateboard wreck.

Never once has my head hit the ground, and the only time I did make contact with something with my head (motorcycle handlebars) I was racing and was wearing a helmet. Broke the helmet almost in half. Of course this was back in the early 70's and helmets were worthless. All of my other wrecks were without helmet.

I've been hit square in the head many times with baseballs, been hit in the face/head many times in fights and beatings from my pop, and I've had stitches in my head a couple times (fell out of a car, and pulled a loose cinder block off a wall I was climbing) but don't think I've ever had a concussion. Hell, I've only had maybe 4-5 headaches in my entire life. What's weird is that my brother, sister, and pop all suffer/suffered from migraines. Weird.

Does the term "hard-headed" mean anything to you Dean??

[C&CDean]

1. Establish a holding company in a tax haven.
2. Contract to have the equipment made in, say, Pakistan
3. Use a straw company to import and distribute inside the US leaving it with only minimal profit to cover its operations.

If sued, let the straw company take the booboo and go bancrupt. Change the name and make minor design alterations, set up a new straw company. Start the game from 'go' again.

It might feel sleazy, but, after you review your bank statement from the deck of your beach house in Belize over a cold adult beverage, you'll feel better. If not, then Suzee, fresh in from your Hong Kong office can rub your neck for a while.

Your fantasy world is eerily similar to mine...

[C&CDean]

Does the term "hard-headed" mean anything to you Dean??

Even had my foot runt over and didn't break anything.

[budbarrybob]

1. Establish a holding company in a tax haven.
2. Contract to have the equipment made in, say, Pakistan
3. Use a straw company to import and distribute inside the US leaving it with only minimal profit to cover its operations.

If sued, let the straw company take the booboo and go bancrupt. Change the name and make minor design alterations, set up a new straw company. Start the game from 'go' again.

It might feel sleazy, but, after you review your bank statement from the deck of your beach house in Belize over a cold adult beverage, you'll feel better. If not, then Suzee, fresh in from your Hong Kong office can rub your neck for a while.

Why does this make me feel better than having a company sued over the negligence of a coach / school administration or the stupid bad luck of an individual who may or may not have used very poor technique. Maybe the kid just hit the ground hard with the back of his head. But by all means its because its the helmet's fault for preventing every possible injury OR the companies fault for not saying "hey you should use all your straps instead of 3" (like the cool college kids and pro's do)

Saying you have old equipment and sue because it didn't prevent a head injury is like driving a classic Ford and suing because it doesn't have an airbag.

[KantoSooner]

Your fantasy world is eerily similar to mine...

Never used any set up like this to sell athletic equipment (though the Paki's do some of the world's best leather stitching, those little kids little fingers are perfect for the task. just sayin'). Used it in several of the more adverse legal nations to avoid giving the local authorities and/or big men anything of interest to grab. Pity that plaintiff lawyers are making the same strategies something to be considered for doing business in the USofA.