I'll preface this by saying that I haven't looked into the issue deeply and this is just message board banter not legal advice.
There are three possible factual findings in an incident like this:
-it was an inevitable accident where no one was at fault;
-It was an accident which happened because of negligence; or
-It was an intentional act and not an accident.
We've all seen the video, and it looks to me like Wideman did what he intended to do, as opposed to being a true accident. But when you add the fact he was probably seriously concussed at the time, the incident becomes more difficult to categorize. It defies reality that Wideman actually intended to cross-check a ref from behind for no reason. But also, he did do exactly that.
The matter is more complicated when you consider the ref was working at the time. If the matter is covered by WCB, then there is no cause of action. WCB does not cover intentional acts but they do cover accidents. If its an accident and if WCB coverage applies to a ref (or linesman) in the course of their employment, then the worker can not sue and instead will be compensated and treated for by the WCB rules.
Let's say the ref was walking down the hallway on skates, and there was a rut in the flooring which caused him to fall and break his leg. That to me seems to be a WCB claim, not something the ref could sue for.
When you take it as part of the game and he was hit with seeming intention, that might change how the law applies.
Its a difficult case. He certainly deserves compensation, but from whom and how much? WCB compensation typically is just a lot of rehab.
|