Quote (IceMage @ Sep 18 2014 05:27pm)
Marlboro doesn't pay for my hospital visits because I was a lifelong smoker... why would the NFL have to pay anything? The teams pay the athletes for their professional skills/services, and that's the contract. They are free to go get a shitty job with shitty pay like the rest of us.
Here's an honest question: do you think any current player going into the NFL is not aware of the risks of multiple concussions?
Tobacco companies have been forced to pay out many BILLIONS of dollars. Just like the tobacco companies, the NFL tried to cover up what was happening. That's why the NFL should have to pay.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/9745797/new-book-league-denial-says-nfl-used-resources-power-two-decades-deny-football-link-brain-damage
Quote
the NFL used its power and resources to discredit independent scientists and their work; that the league cited research data that minimized the dangers of concussions while emphasizing the league's own flawed research; and that league executives employed an aggressive public relations strategy designed to keep the public unaware of what league executives really knew about the effects of playing the game.
That doesn't sound like players had an informed decision. NOW that all of this has come to light I would hope players can make an informed decision. Players who have already been signed up however, have clear cause to take legal action.
Quote
The First Lawsuits Against Cigarette Manufacturers
When the first reports emerged linking cigarettes to cancer emerged in the 1950s, plaintiffs began suing cigarette manufacturers. Plaintiffs in these early cases -- usually smokers with lung cancer -- typically employed several legal theories in their lawsuits:
negligent manufacture - the tobacco companies failed to act with reasonable care in making and marketing cigarettes
product liability - the tobacco companies made and marketed a product that was unfit to use
negligent advertising - the tobacco companies failed to warn consumers of the risks of smoking cigarettes
fraud, and
violation of state consumer protection statutes (most of which prohibit unfair and deceptive business practices).
Tobacco manufacturers responded in full force, fighting each lawsuit and refusing to settle out of court. They relied on several defense strategies, arguing that:
Tobacco was not harmful to smokers.
Smokers' cancer was caused by other factors.
Smokers assumed the risk of cancer when they decided to smoke.
That defense sounds familiar.
Quote
a California jury ordered Philip Morris to pay $51.5 million to a California smoker with inoperable lung cancer.
Quote
In November 1998, the attorneys general of 46 states and four of the largest tobacco companies agreed to settle the state cases. Terms of the settlement are referred to as the Master Settlement Agreement. Highlights include:
Tobacco companies agreed to refrain from engaging in certain advertising practices, particularly ad campaigns that marketed cigarettes towards kids.
Tobacco companies agreed to pay annual sums of money to the states to compensate them for health-care costs related to smoking (a minimum of $206 billion over the first twenty-five years).
The settlement created and funded the National Public Education Foundation, dedicated to reducing youth smoking and preventing diseases associated with smoking.
Tobacco companies dissolved three of the biggest tobacco industry organizations.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tobacco-litigation-history-and-development-32202.htmlI rest my case.
This post was edited by nineinchnailz on Sep 19 2014 01:19am