Spurs liable for player brain damage

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Comment Deleted by Site Moderator

Levy is a right unt.

Why did this have to go through the high court, it has been 9 years of hell you put this kid and his family through.

The player and his family were not told of his condition. This was relevant to the finding of negligence. See the BBC article :

"It was their responsibility, as specialist physicians and employers, to ensure that relevant risks were identified and communicated to the claimant and his parents to enable them to make an informed decision as to whether to bear them.

"In this, they singularly failed."

Also, as for taking it through the courts and initially denying liability, this might well be for two reasons:

firstly - if commercial insurance was being relied upon the insurer will have taken control of the defence of this case and insisted on denial of liability. In fact, the club most likely would have breached its terms and conditions of insurance if they had admitted liability as this would have prejudiced the Insurer's defence.

Secondly - it appears that liability was sought to be apportioned between the FA and the club. The most likely venue for this to be done is in the courts.

comment by naughton's bad tash (U13634)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
Also, as for taking it through the courts and initially denying liability, this might well be for two reasons:

firstly - if commercial insurance was being relied upon the insurer will have taken control of the defence of this case and insisted on denial of liability. In fact, the club most likely would have breached its terms and conditions of insurance if they had admitted liability as this would have prejudiced the Insurer's defence.

Secondly - it appears that liability was sought to be apportioned between the FA and the club. The most likely venue for this to be done is in the courts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And there you have it. Well stated NBT. To accuse Spurs of dragging this through the courts was totally wrong.

Good points Naughton.
However, denying culpability guarantees that there will be court proceedings. If the intention had been to go to court to determine the apportioning of culpability then I think a denial of liability would have been pretty unnecessary in the first place. Furthermore if you look at the quotes from the court in the BBC article you can see that clearly the Defendants or Respondents were denying culpability before the court as well.
In addition to this, while I can understand denying liability at the first instances for purposes of confirmation but seven years is an unreasonably long period. It was known from the beginning that Spurs had failed to divulge the information. You have to admit that that is a bullet to the head right there. Game over. You dont need a legal expert to tell you that you are culpable in that instance. The interests of the insured carry just as much weight as those of the insurer so once this was established Spurs had the responsibility to inform their insurers as much. In any case seven years is a long time.

Last I knew Tottenham were cleared and the employed professionals were to blame.

If I recall correctly, the club was held 70% liable and the medical staff 30%?
Anyway, it was a dreadful shame that he was allowed on the pitch.