Who's the employer?

[Nofrontteeth]

Confused! Calling all Barrack Room Lawyers.

Players welfare is understandably a prime outcome but who holds the liability as being negligent if harm or loss occurs through training for or performing in a professional rugby game?
With player contracts held by clubs (the employer?), National Unions eg RFU calling on their services, even other professional playing groups eg Lions, Baa Baas etc. who needs the Employer Liability Insurance?
Or are the players self employed contractors liable for their own actions and liability.

[GB72]

I think what you are looking at, if we are looking at the larger scale concussion issue, is a liabity for the RFU or other governing body. If the clubs can show that they complied with all safety and recovery protocols, the issue would be with the governing body not having sufficient protocols in place.

The liability may change, I suspect, if there is evidence that a club did not comply with the relevant protocols or ignored medical advice. or acted negligently but these would, I suspect, be claims in contributory negligence unless the issue can be put down to one event.

Not my specifc area of practice and so more just an educated guess from someone with a legal background.

[Nofrontteeth]

Thanks GB72 I understand your thinking. Tort of negligence and who allowed me (the player) to take a risk is always a contentious subject but it could be the end of full contact rugby as we know it.

Criminal breach in duties of care by an employer or employee are also embroiled in the question.

Concussion be it rugby, football or any other similar activity is like claims for Asbestosis (what site contractor should have looked after me x years ago?).

Rugby players - are they in a GIG economy?

Retired H&S enforcement officer trying to employ common sense and reasonableness.

[GB72]

It is an interesting question and, whilst I have read the news stories about the football cases, I have not gone into much more depth.

That said, from the words used in the football cases, there appears to be a request for the football authorties, with their far deeper pockets, to set up funds to help those that it impacts rather than an threat of legal action. There is also the advocacy to help improve standards going forward but I do not recall mention of litigation.

Now, NFL was very different and I believe that much of the huge settlement rested on medical advice and reports being disregarded.

I will be honest and say that I do not see what the rugby litigation is going to achieve. I have not seen much, if anything, regarding calls for rule changes. Now that can mean that those bringing the case are not interested, it is not being reported or the is admission that the game has now got its house in order and is doing all that it can.

[voice of the crumbie]

I'm not 100% sure on this as I'm not a specialist.

However when a player a player plays for their country or the Lions I believe they are contracted by the respective union or the Lions to play / be available for a certain number of matches in return for remuneration. I would have thought that that makes the Union /Lions their employer for the matches concerned and the player their employee by virtue of the fact that a contract is involved.

Given that they become employers, albeit, for a limited period, would they not be legally required to take out employer's liability insurance for that period with the liability returning to the club when the players return?

Happy to be educated further by someone with relevant expertise in this specific field.

[GB72]

I'm not 100% sure on this as I'm not a specialist.

However when a player a player plays for their country or the Lions I believe they are contracted by the respective union or the Lions to play / be available for a certain number of matches in return for remuneration. I would have thought that that makes the Union /Lions their employer for the matches concerned and the player their employee by virtue of the fact that a contract is involved.

Given that they become employers, albeit, for a limited period, would they not be legally required to take out employer's liability insurance for that period with the liability returning to the club when the players return?

Happy to be educated further by someone with relevant expertise in this specific field.

I think that the problem comes about when you are dealing with comulative injuries. A leg break or a torn muscle can be attributed to a specific match. A lifetime of problems caused by concussive blows over a sustained period is less easy to pinpoint.

Then you have the first line of defence. The club, team or whatever body is involved would look to show they applied all of the safety procedures and protocols required at the time. Assuming that is the case, and there is no issue of negligence based on the standards not having been met, it would be hard to find liability. That leaves your only target as the union. Can you show that they knew that more stringent protocols were needed, can you show that they disregarded medical advice, should they have commissioned more studies and investigations.

I think in this instance, the issue of who is the employer is less relevant to litigation as there would have been several. It is who is responsible for setting the standards for the game that is the target.

[Cardiff Tig]

It is an interesting question and, whilst I have read the news stories about the football cases, I have not gone into much more depth.

That said, from the words used in the football cases, there appears to be a request for the football authorties, with their far deeper pockets, to set up funds to help those that it impacts rather than an threat of legal action. There is also the advocacy to help improve standards going forward but I do not recall mention of litigation.

Now, NFL was very different and I believe that much of the huge settlement rested on medical advice and reports being disregarded.

I will be honest and say that I do not see what the rugby litigation is going to achieve. I have not seen much, if anything, regarding calls for rule changes. Now that can mean that those bringing the case are not interested, it is not being reported or the is admission that the game has now got its house in order and is doing all that it can.

The thing is that there have been lots of occasions in the past where players have clearly been concussed and stayed on, or been brought back on when everyone in the crowd can see its not OK. I'd be incredibly surprised if the club doctors back then were advocating for that approach, and that it wasn't the coaches/players overriding the medics.