Jarrod Saffy v The Rebels

The most likely scenario is that the rupa agreed contract ensures continuity of payment and the club insures the risk that the player will not be able to play.
Any compensation will be devoid of the need to prove fault and the insurance is just the clubs way of defraying the cost of a player who can't play.
In the McCracken case he sued his opponents not his employer: his employer was not negligent and any damages he could have recovered from the employer even if it had been negligent would have been very limited.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If the worst happens and Saffy does not recover (here's hoping he does though), it certainly creates an interesting case. He would obviously try and recieve compensation for a workplace injury, but I know if I was a lawyer for the insurance company I would try to discredit any notion or speculation that he was destined for higher honours and focus on the fact that he had a very injury interrupted time at the Rebels, rarely started games and would likely receive no contract, or a reduced value one upon completion of his current contract. Compensation for workplace injuries generally are based on the seriousness and consequences of the injury, age, future income lost and use to society. I hope I am incorrect however.

I guess Byrnes will see you in court

I doubt he will have anything to worry about

Google "vicarious liability" or get your amanuensis to do so

One of the few times I completely agree with you IS. Unfortunately many people have little idea how insurance works hence the uproar and disillusionment when people think they are insured but really aren't. The QLD floods spring to mind.

Why do you think Byrnes would need to worry about vicarious liability?

This thread's becoming personal, and it's all a bit silly. Get back to the subject, boys.

Surely the fact that Saffy played a super rugby game after the training incident is going to severely limit his chances of successfully suing anyone.

I don't. My point was that there's very little scope for any one to be liable. A major difference in the McCracken case was that the perpetrators were employed by the other club which was, by virtue of the principle of vicarious liability, responsible for their tort.
The club is vicariously liable for Byrnes' actions. Saffy and Byrnes are both employed by the same entity. Damages for workplace injuries are severely curtailed or non-existent in most (if not all) australian states and provinces, certainly including Victoria and NSW.

I expect you are still a student, or very bad at your profession

You could only be more wrong if you were expressing one of your opinions on an issue connected with rugby.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Cut out the personal sniping, fellas. Sort it out over a beer.

Exactly. you two actually have a lot in common.

Waylon provides unrelenting criticism of the Force and Inside Shoulder does the same to the Waratahs.

Anyway, seeing as I heard really heard this referenced other than the article cited I would be very surprised if anything came of this.

Also, of course you'd tell Byrnes to shutup with his history of media mismanagement this year.

I know where you are going but frankly employer liability for employee actions in the course of employment is such an accepted issue that you rarely need to go back to basic principles of vicarious liability. Plus the states each have a variant of the Employee Liability Act that sheets individual liability home to the employer except in limited circumstances.

The restrictions on workplace claims are the result of the workers compensation legislation, not vicarious liability issues.

Precisely why the claim would not be worth bringing!
But in victoria the position is reached by reason of s24A of the Wrongs Act.

Although Saffy's injury is nothing to laugh about, I did have a chuckle at the Fairfax Radio newsreader's stuff-up when reporting it.

http://www.radiotoday.com.au/news/fun-stuff/500-just-one-wrong-letter.html

That would seem far more likely to happen at a Canberra Raiders mad Monday.

Just because you have a potential claim under one course of action does not preclude you from following alternative ones. In fact, even if you have successfully claimed workers comp then you can still exercise your right to issue civilly, the quorum of damages will just be mitigated by the monies already obtained. AFAIK, its actually not an uncommon thing for plaintiffs to do workers comp first because its easier and returns smaller and then contemplate whether there is a Tort case worth running; which is harder and more expensive (but you can, if you wish, leverage the workers comp monies into said case).

I think you mean "cause of action" and "quantum of damages" - but you may mean exactly what you typed: if so neither refers to a legal concept.
Its not mitigation - technically money paid is a defence but only if its paid by the person you seek damages from (mitigation is something a plaintiff is obliged to do - i.e. there is an obligation on the party claiming damages to take all reasonable steps to minimise the damage they suffer).
As for leveraging your comp payments the fact is that there are plenty of firms who act on a no win no pay basis and who fund the disbursements necessary to present a person's/company's "common law" or even Trade Practices case. Comp payments would fund about 1 hour of a single lawyer's work per week, if that, so it would need to be some kind of massive lever to get you anywhere.
The reason people get their compensation first is that workers compensation does not require proof of fault in the employer for it to be payable and so, in the case of a frank injury, entitlement is easily established whereas proof of fault, even in this imaginary and illusory case, would involve retention of a number of experts by all sides before it could be tried.
The certainty with which some of the propositions have been advanced in this thread causes me to wonder how accurate any of the rugby views expressed elsewhere on the site are likely to be.