Mayo Clinic in Minnesota cleared Sasser to play

[RamzFanz]

Just my opinion, but I can't see where the Rams did anything to ruin his career...As was stated in another post, there are 31 other teams in the NFL...It seems that they just made the decision that they were most comfortable with...I'm certainly not a lawyer nor expert on the law, but I did have occasion to speak to an attorney who told me that in the situation that I was inquiring about, one is not obligated or even allowed to sign away his/her legal rights...My understanding was that many liability waivers would not survive a lawsuit...

A liability waiver is airtight UNLESS there is negligence. If world wide recognized experts say he is fine, how is there negligence? If he is informed of the risk and his family is informed of the risk and THEY decide it's a risk they accept, how is there negligence?

I don't see that the Rams could be at risk. Besides, they have insurance for these issues so, even if the legal system totally went haywire, they wouldn't actually pay or even have to defend themselves in court.

 

[jrry32]

A liability waiver is airtight UNLESS there is negligence. If world wide recognized experts say he is fine, how is there negligence? If he is informed of the risk and his family is informed of the risk and THEY decide it's a risk they accept, how is there negligence?

I don't see that the Rams could be at risk. Besides, they have insurance for these issues so, even if the legal system totally went haywire, they wouldn't actually pay or even have to defend themselves in court.

Eh, sort of. Not really.

Plus, it's also possible that insurance would be unwilling to cover for a player with a known medical condition.

 

[-X-]

Eh, sort of. Not really.

Plus, it's also possible that insurance would be unwilling to cover for a player with a known medical condition.

Well that's the NFLPA via the CBA, right?

 

[jrry32]

Well that's the NFLPA via the CBA, right?

I don't think so.(but I'm not sure) I'm talking about insurance in regards to a liability policy. I.E. the Rams being indemnified by an insurer if they're sued. I think you're talking about Sasser being able to get himself insurance. But I could be misunderstanding you.

 

[Mikey Ram]

A liability waiver is airtight UNLESS there is negligence. If world wide recognized experts say he is fine, how is there negligence? If he is informed of the risk and his family is informed of the risk and THEY decide it's a risk they accept, how is there negligence?

I don't see that the Rams could be at risk. Besides, they have insurance for these issues so, even if the legal system totally went haywire, they wouldn't actually pay or even have to defend themselves in court.

Ok... I'll simply restate that the Rams did not ruin his shot at a NFL career...If another team wants to sign him and clear him, then he has his chance...I believe I'll bow out of this discussion at this point..

 

[RamzFanz]

Eh, sort of. Not really.

Plus, it's also possible that insurance would be unwilling to cover for a player with a known medical condition.

No... really. If you sign a waiver acknowledging the risk as an informed person, waiving your rights to sue, you can't sue unless you were misinformed or misled OR the company didn't hold up their end and was negligent.

You can't waive your rights. But, your rights are only that you aren't being misled or lied too, not that there isn't a known risk which you agree to take on.

Insurance covers what insurance covers. If they wouldn't cover him, or it was cost prohibitive, then that's a different scenario.

 

[RamzFanz]

Ok... I'll simply restate that the Rams did not ruin his shot at a NFL career...If another team wants to sign him and clear him, then he has his chance...I believe I'll bow out of this discussion at this point..

I agree. He has other chances. And I am not saying the Rams didn't make a sound decision based upon what they knew.

Having the Mayo Clinic clear you is a game changer though, and I would reconsider if I were the Rams.

 

[jrry32]

No... really. If you sign a waiver acknowledging the risk as an informed person, waiving your rights to sue, you can't sue unless you were misinformed or misled OR the company didn't hold up their end and was negligent.

You can't waive your rights. But, your rights are only that you aren't being misled or lied too, not that there isn't a known risk which you agree to take on.

I apologize if I come off as a know-it-all here but you're misstating things a bit. In this particular scenario, the liability waiver would not be undermined by negligence.(and in most scenarios, it is intended to cover for negligence) Because it's indemnifying the Rams from their negligence. Allowing a player with a known heart defect to play is negligent. The point of the waiver is to give them the defense that he assumed the risk. It's an affirmative defense because they're admitting they were negligent but saying that negligence is mitigated by the fact that he knew the risks coming in and chose to proceed.

So if he alleges negligence, the Rams point to the waiver which serves as an express assumption of the risk.

You could also seek to enforce the liability waiver through contract law and prevent the lawsuit altogether but odds are that you will lose. Courts do not like liability waivers and are typically hesitant to enforce them...especially in situations where there is uneven bargaining power.

 

[Moostache]

I remember Gathers' death like it was yesterday. I also remember reading about Flo Hyman's death too. I don't know if this is the same condition in Sasser or not, but if there's a chance of literally dropping dead on the field, take the $113K and put the free education to use and live instead of risking potential death to MAYBE be the 5th WR on a relatively bad NFL receiver corp.

 

[jrry32]

I remember Gathers' death like it was yesterday. I also remember reading about Flo Hyman's death too. I don't know if this is the same condition in Sasser or not, but if there's a chance of literally dropping dead on the field, take the $113K and put the free education to use and live instead of risking potential death to MAYBE be the 5th WR on a relatively bad NFL receiver corp.

It may not be as severe but if the STL Today piece is correct, it's the same condition.(HCM)

 

[kurtfaulk]

.

why can't sasser have a defibrillator inserted into his body? if his heart gives out on him the defib will go into action and shock his heart back into action. or does his condition just stop the heart and that's that?

having said that you shouldn't really play contact sports if you have a defib in your body. one hard hit on it may cause it to malfunction.

.

 

[RamzFanz]

I apologize if I come off as a know-it-all here but you're misstating things a bit. In this particular scenario, the liability waiver would not be undermined by negligence.(and in most scenarios, it is intended to cover for negligence) Because it's indemnifying the Rams from their negligence. Allowing a player with a known heart defect to play is negligent. The point of the waiver is to give them the defense that he assumed the risk. It's an affirmative defense because they're admitting they were negligent but saying that negligence is mitigated by the fact that he knew the risks coming in and chose to proceed.

So if he alleges negligence, the Rams point to the waiver which serves as an express assumption of the risk.

You could also seek to enforce the liability waiver through contract law and prevent the lawsuit altogether but odds are that you will lose. Courts do not like liability waivers and are typically hesitant to enforce them...especially in situations where there is uneven bargaining power.

Hmmmm. My understanding is quite the opposite, but I could be wrong. My last investigation into liability waivers led me to believe that you, as a person aware of the dangers, being informed of the dangers, would have no real standing unless the provider of the agreement was lying or negligent.

Waivers are never to negate negligence. Negligence cannot be waived. If you agree that riding a roller coaster has risks and get hurt, you're responsible. If they are negligent, ignoring a known defect, it doesn't matter what you signed, generally speaking.

I just remembered the rule of thumb saying: You can waive your rights, but you can never waive their negligence.

 

[jrry32]

Hmmmm. My understanding is quite the opposite, but I could be wrong. My last investigation into liability waivers led me to believe that you, as a person aware of the dangers, being informed of the dangers, would have no real standing unless the provider of the agreement was lying or negligent.

Waivers are never to negate negligence. Negligence cannot be waived. If you agree that riding a roller coaster has risks and get hurt, you're responsible. If they are negligent, ignoring a known defect, it doesn't matter what you signed, generally speaking.

I just remembered the rule of thumb saying: You can waive your rights, but you can never waive their negligence.

It really depends. Unknown or unknowable negligence most likely will not be able to be waived since you couldn't know of it when signing the agreement.(I use most likely because the court might still choose to enforce the agreement...it's just less likely...and it can't be more than simple negligence) But if, for example, you went to a skating rink that did not have railings surrounding the skating area and signed a waiver where you agreed that you were aware of the risks, knew there were no railings, and were accepting the risks...you couldn't later sue for negligence alleging that their failure to have railings caused your injury...if the court was willing to enforce the document.

But the Rams allowing a player with a known heart defect on the field is negligence if he suffers an injury or death due to that defect. Because the Rams had a duty to him as an employee, they breached that duty by allowing him to play with knowledge of the dangerous defect, his defect was the cause of his injuries/death, and his injury/death entitles him to damages. It satisfies all of the negligence elements. The Rams simply use the defense that they were negligent but he knew the risks and agreed to proceed anyways.

But the thing about liability waivers are that they seem great in theory but a good bit of the time, they're just not going to be enforceable. Can't hurt to have one but it's not ironclad.

To use another example, you are a contractor that builds swimming pools. You give the homeowner the option of putting a fence or barrier around the pool when it's under construction. He opts not to. He signs a liability waiver saying that he accepts the dangers associated with the pool not being fenced while under construction and agrees not to sue for an injury resulting in him falling into the pool while it's being constructed. He gets drunk one night, falls into the pool, and injures himself. He sues you for not putting a gate around the pool alleging that it is custom of the industry to put barriers or a fence around the pool to stop people from falling in and that it was negligent of you to not have done that.

He's suing for negligence. Your agreement still might protect you, though. It depends on if the court finds it enforceable. And even if it doesn't, it might protect you as an assumption of the risk defense.

 

[jrry32]

@RamzFanz

In fact, the law can be pretty fascinating on this topic because you can never be entirely sure how it'll come out. For example, a young man signed an exculpatory agreement (liability waiver) to go skydiving. He goes skydiving regularly with this company for about 6 months at which point he is severely injured in a plane crash right after takeoff while going skydiving. The court upheld the agreement and granted summary judgement to the skydiving company.

On the flip side, another man signed an exculpatory agreement in order to ski at a resort and was severely injured after hitting a metal pole while skiing on their slopes. The court in that case refused to enforce the exculpatory agreement.

Now, there were reasons why they came to the decision they did in each that if I went into more detail would make sense. The reasons why were related to the agreements themselves. But the point being that these agreements aren't going to hurt you if you have them but they're also not an ironclad agreement that will definitely be enforced.

 

[mr.stlouis]

I would play if I was Sasser and would let him if I were the Rams. If you die on the football field, you die happy. Just my opinion.

All men die, not all men really live. But hey, he is kind of a long shot at best. I can see where the Rams are coming from. I support their decision.

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/07/sasser-reverts-to-nfi-for-2015-wont-receive-salary/

Sasser reverts to NFI for 2015, won’t receive salary
Posted by Mike Florio on June 7, 2015

Getty Images

Rams sixth-round receiver Bud Sasser went unclaimed through waivers on Friday, which means he has reverted to the team’s non-football illness list for the rest of the 2015 season. It also means he’ll receive no further pay.

Per a league source, the Rams won’t be exercising the option to pay Sasser while on NFI.

The pay-or-don’t-pay decision is up to the team. In this case, the Rams opted to sign Sasser at a slotted signing bonus of more than $113,000. In theory, the Rams could have simply rescinded their rights to him upon discovering that he has a heart condition that, in the opinion of the Rams, prevents him from playing.

The Rams could release him from NFI at any time, and that could be something Sasser wants, given that he believes he can play. He agent has said that Sasser has received clearance from the Mayo Clinic.

The Rams see it otherwise, and apparently so do the other 31 teams. Sasser would have been a bargain via waivers, given that the Rams already paid the signing bonus. If he had been claimed, a new team could have given him its own examination before deciding whether to let him play.

The Rams see the risk as unacceptable, and it’s apparently not a position that will change. Moving forward, the biggest question becomes whether the Rams at some point will relinquish his rights. If/when Sasser is available, the question then becomes whether another team will clear him to play.

For now, Sasser’s NFL career will consist of a $113,000 parting gift from the team that drafted him.

 

[nighttrain]

Yes, I misspoke. Ruin his opportunity with the Rams. My only point is if the heart experts aren't worried, that should trump doctors. They aren't experts. If i were Sasser, I would go to 2 or 3 EXPERTS and see if they agree.

Mayo Clinic recognized as top hospital in the US
train

 

[Rmfnlt]

That's why I suggested what I suggested. The indemnification is for the Rams.
If he releases the Rams of any liability, then everyone's happy.

This makes sense to me. Especially if trhe entire family were brought into the issue identification and decision making process.

I'm no lawyer, but if all of it were documented and signed off on by all parties, I'd have to figure it'd be pretty airtight.

Then, perhaps it's good for all parties?

I dunno...

 

[MrMotes]

That's why I suggested what I suggested. The indemnification is for the Rams.
If he releases the Rams of any liability, then everyone's happy.

You can't indemnify against the PR and sense of guilt on something like that.

But if the Rams don't want him, and that's fine, they should give him his release so he can see if someone else does...

 

[Rmfnlt]

Hmmmm. My understanding is quite the opposite, but I could be wrong. My last investigation into liability waivers led me to believe that you, as a person aware of the dangers, being informed of the dangers, would have no real standing unless the provider of the agreement was lying or negligent.

Waivers are never to negate negligence. Negligence cannot be waived. If you agree that riding a roller coaster has risks and get hurt, you're responsible. If they are negligent, ignoring a known defect, it doesn't matter what you signed, generally speaking.

I just remembered the rule of thumb saying: You can waive your rights, but you can never waive their negligence.

This seems very logical to me.

I wonder if we have any liability lawyer on the site?