Boogaard family's lawsuit could shake up NHL

[ZBBM]

It is a single lawsuit and, at that, a legal action in its infancy. That said, the lawsuit brought by the family of Derek Boogaard against the N.H.L.?s players union could lead to some novel and tumultuous territory for the sport.

In one sense, the lawsuit, filed last week in Los Angeles, is narrowly drawn: it accuses the union of squandering a chance at a possible financial claim by the Boogaard family in the aftermath of Derek Boogaard?s drug-and-alcohol-related death in May 2011.

Boogaard, one of the league?s most feared and highly paid enforcers, had three years left on his multimillion-dollar contract when he died while in the league?s substance-abuse program. The union, the new lawsuit alleges, knew it had a potential claim but failed to meet a basic deadline, and the family?s chance at close to $5 million was lost.

But the lawsuit also contains an array of serious charges that could be explored in the course of litigation or in lawsuits to come.

The lawsuit, at its emotional heart, alleges that the Minnesota Wild and the Rangers, the two teams for which Boogaard served as a designated fighter, contributed to Boogaard?s death. The lawsuit says doctors for the Wild and the Rangers repeatedly prescribed painkillers and other drugs to Boogaard, even after his addiction to those very kinds of drugs was known.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/sports/hockey/result-of-boogaard-suit-against-nhl-union-could-exceed-outline.html?hp

 

[Kin]

The family?s lawyer, Howard F. Silber, could also attempt to show that Boogaard sustained brain damage as a result of his role as a fighter and that the league and the union knew that its fighters faced such a risk. Boogaard?s parents authorized researchers to examine his brain after his death, and those researchers concluded he had a degenerative brain disease linked to repeated head trauma.

This struck me as interesting. One of the things that leagues like the NFL are almost certain to say in their defense concerning the lawsuits they're facing is that the injuries sustained by players occurred during the natural course of a game and doing things, tackling and being tackled and what have you, that are such intrinsic parts of the games that simply by stepping onto the field a player is consenting to the risks associated.

But this is a little bit different, isn't it? Fighting isn't an intrinsic part of the game that a player assumes the risk of simply by playing. The league could say that Boogard's choice to be a fighter was his own and one that they have no responsibility for because he wasn't employed as a "fighter" but rather as a  Right Wing or whatever for the Rangers and that fights are something the league penalizes.

 

[ZBBM]

The family?s lawyer, Howard F. Silber, could also attempt to show that Boogaard sustained brain damage as a result of his role as a fighter and that the league and the union knew that its fighters faced such a risk. Boogaard?s parents authorized researchers to examine his brain after his death, and those researchers concluded he had a degenerative brain disease linked to repeated head trauma.

This struck me as interesting. One of the things that leagues like the NFL are almost certain to say in their defense concerning the lawsuits they're facing is that the injuries sustained by players occurred during the natural course of a game and doing things, tackling and being tackled and what have you, that are such intrinsic parts of the games that simply by stepping onto the field a player is consenting to the risks associated.

But this is a little bit different, isn't it? Fighting isn't an intrinsic part of the game that a player assumes the risk of simply by playing. The league could say that Boogard's choice to be a fighter was his own and one that they have no responsibility for because he wasn't employed as a "fighter" but rather as a  Right Wing or whatever for the Rangers and that fights are something the league penalizes.

True -- but they undercut themselves by promoting fighting on their websites, in merchandising that they endorse (e.g., "tough guy" vids etc.).  And, most emphatically, by doing very little to significantly curb fighting, which they could easily do with rule changes.

 

[Kin]

True -- but they undercut themselves by promoting fighting on their websites, in merchandising that they endorse (e.g., "tough guy" vids etc.).  And, most emphatically, by doing very little to significantly curb fighting, which they could easily do with rule changes.

I guess but the decision to fight still ultimately rests with the player. I'm not necessarily saying that indemnifies the league or anything just that it's a fundamentally different argument from the one that the NFL would be making in regards to their concussion issues.

 

[Manson]

I don't think the family has much of a case.  Voluntary assumption of risk is a common defense to negligence and I think the player quite clearly assumes the risks involved with fighting. So I think they'll have a successful defense there.

The other part of the suit is more or less a medical malpractice case in which they're saying he was prescribed drugs the doctors knew he was addicted to.  Even if that's true, I'm sure the doctors had legitimate reasons for prescribing what they did, or at least they'll be arguing that, plus they'll have lots of medical documentation supporting their decision.  There needs to be a pretty blatant level of incompetence to prove a doctor was negligent and not just wrong.  I mean, they can ultimately have been wrong but it could still be a medically competent opinion.  Then still, they'll have to prove that those prescription drugs contributed to his suicide and that it was reasonably foreseeable that would happen. 

I really don't see much chance here.

 

[princedpw]

I don't think the family has much of a case.  Voluntary assumption of risk is a common defense to negligence and I think the player quite clearly assumes the risks involved with fighting. So I think they'll have a successful defense there.

It may not turn out to be so cut and dry. For instance, the family may suggest that he was pressured to fight by the team (or be threatened by demotion, losing millions).  Id wait and see.