Helmets and shoulder pads with warning labels???

[Patler]

Kory Stringers wife filed a number of lawsuits over her husbands death, and recently settled her suit with the NFL. She still has a lawsuit pending with Riddell, the manufacturer of shoulder pads and helmets. The news has summarized it as follows:


The lawsuit alleges Riddell fails to warn players and coaches that wearing its helmets and shoulder pads in hot temperatures can be dangerous. It seeks a jury trial.

So Kory Stringer died at least in part because his helmet and shoulder pads didn't have a warning label? Should my winter coat, cap and gloves have warning labels?

I do not begrudge her right to file suits. While I think he himself had some responsibility for his own death, I do not doubt that the team, trainers and others who should have been looking after him may have let him down. The environment tolerated by the league, the issues around weight loss drugs and the like may also have contributed. But a lack of a warning label on his helmet and pads? That goes a bit far I think, but courts have shown a willingness the put warning responsibilities on manufacturers for a lot of silly stuff, and I won't be surprised if she wins against Riddell.

[DonHutson]

The lawsuit alleges Riddell fails to warn players and coaches that wearing its helmets and shoulder pads in hot temperatures can be dangerous. It seeks a jury trial.

I would think it would be more dangerous to play football WITHOUT a helmet and pads in hot, or any other, temperatures. No?

But that's the legal system. It's shotguns, not snipers. Fire away at everything and hope someone bleeds some money in the end.

[hoosier]

I do not begrudge her right to file suits. While I think he himself had some responsibility for his own death, I do not doubt that the team, trainers and others who should have been looking after him may have let him down. The environment tolerated by the league, the issues around weight loss drugs and the like may also have contributed. But a lack of a warning label on his helmet and pads? That goes a bit far I think, but courts have shown a willingness the put warning responsibilities on manufacturers for a lot of silly stuff, and I won't be surprised if she wins against Riddell.

My first reaction to this post was, of course she's suing Riddell: it's a relatively easy target that can afford to settle, and in doing so she won't alienate any of her deceased husband's friends and associates. But if you're going to sue, why not sue the NFL for tolerating and promoting a culture that put players like Stringer at risk? It can certainly afford to settle just like Riddell. (I'm trying to understand the legal logic, not defend the decision to file suit.) Is it because the idea of a warning label is easier to grasp and more likely to convince a jury, whereas the idea of holding a "culture" legally accountable is too abstract?

[SMACKTALKIE]

Kory Stringers wife filed a number of lawsuits over her husbands death, and recently settled her suit with the NFL. She still has a lawsuit pending with Riddell, the manufacturer of shoulder pads and helmets. The news has summarized it as follows:


The lawsuit alleges Riddell fails to warn players and coaches that wearing its helmets and shoulder pads in hot temperatures can be dangerous. It seeks a jury trial.

So Kory Stringer died at least in part because his helmet and shoulder pads didn't have a warning label? Should my winter coat, cap and gloves have warning labels?

I do not begrudge her right to file suits. While I think he himself had some responsibility for his own death, I do not doubt that the team, trainers and others who should have been looking after him may have let him down. The environment tolerated by the league, the issues around weight loss drugs and the like may also have contributed. But a lack of a warning label on his helmet and pads? That goes a bit far I think, but courts have shown a willingness the put warning responsibilities on manufacturers for a lot of silly stuff, and I won't be surprised if she wins against Riddell.


Are you really that put-off by this issue? At the least this is simply the result of a man dying. Of course the helmet and pads contribited, as anyone who has worn either can tell you, but so did his weight, his work ethic, supplements, etc.
The intent of the warning label is to avoid a tragedy like this in the future. Furthermore, all trainers and NFL teams are far more concerned about these issues now. Unfortunately a good man had to die for all of this to come to light.

You buy a coat with the intent of it keeping you warm, thats why you don't need a warning label. And as far a "winning" the suit against Riddell, this is part of the end result of the trial, it's over, and the terms will not be disclosed.

[Patler]

I do not begrudge her right to file suits. While I think he himself had some responsibility for his own death, I do not doubt that the team, trainers and others who should have been looking after him may have let him down. The environment tolerated by the league, the issues around weight loss drugs and the like may also have contributed. But a lack of a warning label on his helmet and pads? That goes a bit far I think, but courts have shown a willingness the put warning responsibilities on manufacturers for a lot of silly stuff, and I won't be surprised if she wins against Riddell.

My first reaction to this post was, of course she's suing Riddell: it's a relatively easy target that can afford to settle, and in doing so she won't alienate any of her deceased husband's friends and associates. But if you're going to sue, why not sue the NFL for tolerating and promoting a culture that put players like Stringer at risk? It can certainly afford to settle just like Riddell. (I'm trying to understand the legal logic, not defend the decision to file suit.) Is it because the idea of a warning label is easier to grasp and more likely to convince a jury, whereas the idea of holding a "culture" legally accountable is too abstract?

As I stated, she did sure the NFL and just settled with them in the last couple days. I believe she sued and settled earlier with the Vikings (Rastak???)

[mraynrand]

It wouldn't be unprecedented. As part of a paternity suit, Travis Henry had to get a warning label tattooed on his johnson.

[Rastak]

I do not begrudge her right to file suits. While I think he himself had some responsibility for his own death, I do not doubt that the team, trainers and others who should have been looking after him may have let him down. The environment tolerated by the league, the issues around weight loss drugs and the like may also have contributed. But a lack of a warning label on his helmet and pads? That goes a bit far I think, but courts have shown a willingness the put warning responsibilities on manufacturers for a lot of silly stuff, and I won't be surprised if she wins against Riddell.

My first reaction to this post was, of course she's suing Riddell: it's a relatively easy target that can afford to settle, and in doing so she won't alienate any of her deceased husband's friends and associates. But if you're going to sue, why not sue the NFL for tolerating and promoting a culture that put players like Stringer at risk? It can certainly afford to settle just like Riddell. (I'm trying to understand the legal logic, not defend the decision to file suit.) Is it because the idea of a warning label is easier to grasp and more likely to convince a jury, whereas the idea of holding a "culture" legally accountable is too abstract?

As I stated, she did sure the NFL and just settled with them in the last couple days. I believe she sued and settled earlier with the Vikings (Rastak???)


Her suit against the Vikings was dismissed.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vikings/2005-11-17-stringer-lawsuit_x.htm


As for warning labels, I don't see how that helps anything but the medical testimony did indicate wearing a helmet in that kind of heat contributed to his death.

I think it was also brought up that diauretics may also have contributed to his death. Which is one reason players were pissed when the NFL knew an over the counter supplement had been spiked with it and never bothered to share the info recently.

[Patler]

Are you really that put-off by this issue? At the least this is simply the result of a man dying. Of course the helmet and pads contribited, as anyone who has worn either can tell you, but so did his weight, his work ethic, supplements, etc.
The intent of the warning label is to avoid a tragedy like this in the future. Furthermore, all trainers and NFL teams are far more concerned about these issues now. Unfortunately a good man had to die for all of this to come to light.

You buy a coat with the intent of it keeping you warm, thats why you don't need a warning label. And as far a "winning" the suit against Riddell, this is part of the end result of the trial, it's over, and the terms will not be disclosed.

You don't honestly think a warning label on the helmet or shoulder pads would have affected this at all at that time, do you? Do you really think that Stringer, the coaches and trainers didn't realize that each helped retain heat? As you said, anyone who has ever warn either knows without being told. It is Stringers death that has brought about changes. I doubt that warning labels if present at the time would have affected anything one bit. Stringer or another player had to die before the league, teams and players understood the seriousness of the issue.

Not all, but many warning labels are of little to no value. Many warn against things that only the most naive would ever do, and the very people that would do it are the ones who will never read the label. In fact, very few people read warning labels, and the abundance of labels actually decreases the effectiveness. Equipment is littered with them, manuals have pages and pages of them. The result is a loss of significance, and even important ones now or simply overlooked. Warning labels are there mostly as a defense for the manufacturer, so that if they are sued they can use the "nonintended use" defense.

I seriously doubt that a warning label on his helmet and/or shoulder pads would have saved Kory Stringer's life, but his death may have saved others. Pro athletes know they take risks, but most feel immune to the risks. Hockey players know the risk of head contact with the ice, and of puck contact with an eye; but getting them to wear effective head and eye protection at the pro level has been a 20 year battle. A warning label on football shoulder pads and helmets was not likely to change the actions of players, coaches or teams. They had been told of heat stroke risks before. It took a very unfortunate event, the death of Kory Stringer, for the lesson to hit home.

[sheepshead]

Kory Stringers wife filed a number of lawsuits over her husbands death, and recently settled her suit with the NFL. She still has a lawsuit pending with Riddell, the manufacturer of shoulder pads and helmets. The news has summarized it as follows:


The lawsuit alleges Riddell fails to warn players and coaches that wearing its helmets and shoulder pads in hot temperatures can be dangerous. It seeks a jury trial.

So Kory Stringer died at least in part because his helmet and shoulder pads didn't have a warning label? Should my winter coat, cap and gloves have warning labels?

I do not begrudge her right to file suits. While I think he himself had some responsibility for his own death, I do not doubt that the team, trainers and others who should have been looking after him may have let him down. The environment tolerated by the league, the issues around weight loss drugs and the like may also have contributed. But a lack of a warning label on his helmet and pads? That goes a bit far I think, but courts have shown a willingness the put warning responsibilities on manufacturers for a lot of silly stuff, and I won't be surprised if she wins against Riddell.

Shes grasping for straws. I did some work for Riddell here in Chicago. They have a huge network of lawyers in every state. They get sued all the time mostly on the youth and high school level. Her attorneys know this and she's looking for a settlement. It's also why the helmets cost about $200.

[Patler]

Her suit against the Vikings was dismissed.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/vikings/2005-11-17-stringer-lawsuit_x.htm


As for warning labels, I don't see how that helps anything but the medical testimony did indicate wearing a helmet in that kind of heat contributed to his death.

I think it was also brought up that diauretics may also have contributed to his death. Which is one reason players were pissed when the NFL knew an over the counter supplement had been spiked with it and never bothered to share the info recently.

Thanks ras.

I don't doubt that the helmet contributed, as did the shoulder pads, jersey and anything else he was wearing. I could better understand a suit about inadequate design of the helmet for venting purposes, etc. But basing it on the lack of a warning label, as if the warning label would have made a difference, seems a real stretch to me. Players, coaches and teams have long ignored medical advice, why would a warning label make a difference.

At the time it seemed that the principal factor leading to his rapid decline and death was his use of diuretics more than anything else. That is where the major focus should be, not with putting a warning label inside his shoulder pads.

[Patler]

Ras;

Just read your link. Interesting tidbit in it:


The district judge who dismissed the lawsuit against the team allowed a medical-malpractice case against Dr. David Knowles and the Mankato Clinic to proceed. They settled out of court for an undisclosed amount in May 2003.

So her case against the team was dismissed, but she settled early with the Dr. and clinic.

[bobblehead]

I think Tom Brady should sue the defensive player who blew out his knee because the guy wasn't wearing a warning label that playing football against him could cause you to get hurt.

[Noodle]

It wouldn't be unprecedented. As part of a paternity suit, Travis Henry had to get a warning label tattooed on his johnson.

I had to have one of those warnings, but it was more a warning about imminent disappointment. Not something I'm proud about, but my lawyers thought it was for the best.

[Guiness]

It wouldn't be unprecedented. As part of a paternity suit, Travis Henry had to get a warning label tattooed on his johnson.

I had to have one of those warnings, but it was more a warning about imminent disappointment. Not something I'm proud about, but my lawyers thought it was for the best.

Hence Noodle...short for Wet Noodle?

[mraynrand]

It wouldn't be unprecedented. As part of a paternity suit, Travis Henry had to get a warning label tattooed on his johnson.

I had to have one of those warnings, but it was more a warning about imminent disappointment. Not something I'm proud about, but my lawyers thought it was for the best.

Hence Noodle...short for Wet Noodle?

You also gotta ask when that tattoo was put on - and wonder if you don't get one of those unintended Mad Magazine effects, where you fold it up and see a different picture...

http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/01/madaljaffeefoldin.jpg

[Guiness]

It wouldn't be unprecedented. As part of a paternity suit, Travis Henry had to get a warning label tattooed on his johnson.

I had to have one of those warnings, but it was more a warning about imminent disappointment. Not something I'm proud about, but my lawyers thought it was for the best.

Hence Noodle...short for Wet Noodle?

You also gotta ask when that tattoo was put on - and wonder if you don't get one of those unintended Mad Magazine effects, where you fold it up and see a different picture...


Does anyonbody remember the old joke about two guys standing at the urinal, both with tatoos, but all you can see is a "W" and a "Y". One guy says he's got his wife's name, "Wendy" tatooed, and the other guy has "Welcome to Jamaica, have a nice day"?

[Noodle]

Hence Noodle...short for Wet Noodle?

I've tried to persuade 'em that the proper term for it is "al dente," but luck, not so much.

And I do remember the joke, with only a slight variation as follows: "Welcome to Jamica, Mon, Have a Nice Day."

[ND72]

I'm sueing the school district I work for...I wasn't warned kids can be dicks.
:shock:

[SMACKTALKIE]

I'm sueing the school district I work for...I wasn't warned kids can be dicks.
:shock:

Maybe one of those kids will kill you and we can create posts about how stupid your family is to sue the school district.

[AV David]

"That goes a bit far I think, but courts have shown a willingness the put warning responsibilities on manufacturers for a lot of silly stuff, and I won't be surprised if she wins against Riddell."



That was then, but this is now. This product liability cases are really hard to even get to a jury now. I read part of the expert witnbess report submitted to the court. It goes like this:
" I tested 100 football players every 20 minutes as they practiced in the summer heat. First I did it in shorts and T shirts and then I did the same tests when they were in pads. Their body temperature was higher when they worked out in pads. Therefore, I conclude that working out in pads makes you hotter. Therefore Riddell's equipment was unreasonably dangerous in the absence of a warning.

The standard for a product liability claim is the product is unreasonably dangerous as used by the plaintiff. Assumption of a known risk is a defense. Contributory negligence by the plaintiff is also a defense.

Assuming that pads and jerseys are "unreasonably dangerous", football players know they get hotter in pads than in shorts and Ts. I am sorry Korey Stringer is dead, but it ain't Riddell's fault.

[Patler]

I'm sueing the school district I work for...I wasn't warned kids can be dicks.
:shock:

Maybe one of those kids will kill you and we can create posts about how stupid your family is to sue the school district.

You seem to be missing the point of my thread.
I have no problem with her suits against the league, the team, the doctors, the hospital, etc. alleging lack of appropriate care for her husband. As I wrote earlier, I would have no problem bringing a case against Riddell if it was based on a poor design of the helmet for heat venting purposes. But, in my opinion, an action based on the lack of a warning label is not well-founded because even if a warning label had been provided, it would not have made a difference.

[Rastak]

I'm sueing the school district I work for...I wasn't warned kids can be dicks.
:shock:

Maybe one of those kids will kill you and we can create posts about how stupid your family is to sue the school district.

You seem to be missing the point of my thread.
I have no problem with her suits against the league, the team, the doctors, the hospital, etc. alleging lack of appropriate care for her husband. As I wrote earlier, I would have no problem bringing a case against Riddell if it was based on a poor design of the helmet for heat venting purposes. But, in my opinion, an action based on the lack of a warning label is not well-founded because even if a warning label had been provided, it would not have made a difference.


I'm with Patler on this one. Would a warning label have prompted the guy to refuse to wear a helmet?

Here's a big guy, struggling to get through practice, on a day when I told my buddy at work (I am not making this up), I feel sorry for the Vikings down there in Mankato if it's like up here. It felt like 110 out with the humidity. The guy was puking and refused to quit practicing.

He collapsed after practice and it killed him.

No warning label will ever help that I can see. About the only concrete thing is having independent league appointed doctors with authority pulling some or all players off the field when conditions demand it. Same with allowing injured players back in games.

A guy dying and guys brains getting turned to mush is no laughing matter.