Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
I don't see a ton of tie in between Wideman's case and the concussion lawsuit with former players. That lawsuit is about former players not being advised of the potential effects of repeated concussions and head trauma.
Wideman's case has nothing to do with that.
What they may be worried about is a future precedent where you can basically get away with anything if you claim you are concussed while you do it.
|
It absolutely is relevant to the class action suit. It has to do with reasonably foreseeable risks and the implications for their negligence with Wideman even today can be big
The NHL has a process to deal with concussions. Part of this includes a spotter, and the protocol, etc.
If the NHL admits that Wideman was concussed, and they failed to detect it and let him play, and harm came to someone as a result, then what conclusion do you draw?
Why do you think they were so aggressive in discrediting the doctor who was brought to give an opinion on whether Wideman was concussed?