Diaby Lawsuit?

[Lard Lad]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/4969198.stm

This seems a bit much, even for me, the law student.

Isn't there some "assumption of the risk" when you step on the field, even for egregious tackles, I know there is the States for American Football.

Doen't really help the PR campaign.

[Publius]

I vaguely remember reading Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals back in law school but that was a very long time ago. I believe that case involved a deliberate forearm shiver to the head. Certainly most criminal charges in North American sports over the last few years have stemmed from on-ice assaults in hockey games. There's no way Smith's tackle would warrant criminal charges and I think it's pretty unlikely that Diaby or Arsenal can recover civil damages against Smith either.

[Charleysurf]

I think this has happened before. I think Paul Elliot (Chelsea) tried to sue Dean Saunders for a bad tackle which ended his career, but he got nowhere.

It really was a horrilble tackle on Diaby.

[Lanesra]

http://img419.imageshack.us/img419/9036/407643canofworms4lk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Prefer Wengers idea

[yossarian]

I vaguely remember reading Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals back in law school but that was a very long time ago. I believe that case involved a deliberate forearm shiver to the head. Certainly most criminal charges in North American sports over the last few years have stemmed from on-ice assaults in hockey games. There's no way Smith's tackle would warrant criminal charges and I think it's pretty unlikely that Diaby or Arsenal can recover civil damages against Smith either.

Yeah, I would think it would have to involve something akin to hockey fights or the Rudy Tomjanovich/Kermit Washington incident to really warrant a lawsuit.

Bad...even horrible...tackles happen in football. But unless Smith absolutely did it intentionally.....and by that I mean stupidly admits it (like Keane)....I don't think it warrants legal action....nor should it.

Reading between the lines (perhaps too much) this story is worrisome for a different reason.....ie., to the extent it may reflect the club's concern regarding Diaby's prospects for fully recovery. I hope that's not the case.

[Brunsen]

Wenger has every right to feel aggrieved. The challenge was stupid, reckless, and clumsy.

The F.A. should take action and hopefully Wenger’s posturing with provide them with the incentive to do so…

[Gunners11]

Sunderland's boss defends Smith.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=366775&cc=5901

[n4100]

Of course he defends Smith, what do you think he's going to do, hang him out to dry? I'm not saying he's a dirty player but it was an awful tackle. That said, as someone above stated, there's an inherent danger when you take the field and I don't see any basis for a lawsuit.

All that being said, I do hope that the FA would look it over, because Smith clearly jumped into the tackle so there was dangerous play, and anytime something like this occurs, I don't see anything wrong with some review and being banned for a match or two .

[ZonaGunner]

My understanding is the FA can't look at it further unless Gallagher says that somehow he didn't see part of the incident or something, which I don't expect he would do.

I think the lawsuit talk is not realistic, but it is Arsenal's and Wenger's way of venting their frustration at Gallagher's failure to send off Smith and the stupid FA rules that don't allow further review, meaning Smith won't face any real repercussions for his horrific tackle.

[HSEUPASSION]

I hope the club go through with it, even if they don't see a chance to win. It'd make teams think twice before trying to kick our players around because they'd know someone is watching.

There is no doubt it was a horrible challenge, I personally think he wanted to hurt him (not break his leg, but knock him out of the match to send a message) and that gives the club a right to sue. In any sport, if you go in with the intent to seriously harm, you open yourself up to legal issues.

[Publius]

I hope the club go through with it, even if they don't see a chance to win. It'd make teams think twice before trying to kick our players around because they'd know someone is watching.

There is no doubt it was a horrible challenge, I personally think he wanted to hurt him (not break his leg, but knock him out of the match to send a message) and that gives the club a right to sue. In any sport, if you go in with the intent to seriously harm, you open yourself up to legal issues.

It would be a horrible precedent to file suit. Do you really want every hard foul to bring with it the threat of litigation?

[billyho96]

It would be a horrible precedent to file suit. Do you really want every hard foul to bring with it the threat of litigation?


its not really without precedent. there are numerous incidents in English football of players seeking and getting damages from players who caused serious or career ending injuries.

[HSEUPASSION]

It would be a horrible precedent to file suit. Do you really want every hard foul to bring with it the threat of litigation?

This is different than other hard fouls, he went in simply to harm.

http://www.bradfordcityfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/HistoryDetail/0,,10266~91615,00.html we wouldn't be the first to do it either.

[InTheSun]

Reading between the lines (perhaps too much) this story is worrisome for a different reason.....ie., to the extent it may reflect the club's concern regarding Diaby's prospects for fully recovery. I hope that's not the case. That thought crossed my mind too. Some reports are saying he could be out 9 months.

[Publius]

This is different than other hard fouls, he went in simply to harm.

http://www.bradfordcityfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/HistoryDetail/0,,10266~91615,00.html we wouldn't be the first to do it either.

Thank you for the link, and thanks Billy for your info, as well. It still doesn't look like this has been a very common occurrence to take these things to court and I would certainly like to see video of the injury cited on the Bradford City link to see just what what we'd be comparing the Diaby injury to.

That said, I respectfully disagree with you about Smith's intent to harm. I hardly think the video, standing alone, is sufficient to show Smith had subjective intent to cause injury. Unless Arsenal has more to go on than just the video, I think they'd be wasting their time litigating the matter.

[Przybylinski]

It certainly wasn't right for him to do what he did, but a lawsuit seems a bit much. The English(french) are starting to get like the Americans with lawsuits. Hopefully he will recover and be ready for the next season.

[yossarian]

Thank you for the link, and thanks Billy for your info, as well. It still doesn't look like this has been a very common occurrence to take these things to court and I would certainly like to see video of the injury cited on the Bradford City link to see just what what we'd be comparing the Diaby injury to.

That said, I respectfully disagree with you about Smith's intent to harm. I hardly think the video, standing alone, is sufficient to show Smith had subjective intent to cause injury. Unless Arsenal has more to go on than just the video, I think they'd be wasting their time litigating the matter.

Interestingly enough, according to that Bradford City case, one wouldn't have to show "intent to injure" but only that a reasonable player would know that such a challenge carried a significant risk of serious injury. It seems to be a bit more than a negligence standard but similar.

I agree with you though that I'd like to see the video of the tackle on Watson and what it entailed. I'd be interested in a comparison.....because while the Smith tackle on Diaby was horrible.....I think we've all seen similar tackles throughout the season and in past seasons. Certainly Bocanegra's tackle from a couple of seasons ago was pretty bad.....yet no lawsuit resulted.

[Publius]

Interestingly enough, according to that Bradford City case, one wouldn't have to show "intent to injure" but only that a reasonable player would know that such a challenge carried a significant risk of serious injury. It seems to be a bit more than a negligence standard but similar.

I agree with you though that I'd like to see the video of the tackle on Watson and what it entailed. I'd be interested in a comparison.....because while the Smith tackle on Diaby was horrible.....I think we've all seen similar tackles throughout the season and in past seasons. Certainly Bocanegra's tackle from a couple of seasons ago was pretty bad.....yet no lawsuit resulted.

I was referring to HSEUPASSION's conclusion that Smith had intended to injure Diaby, but you're right, the legal standard for liability cited in that Bradford City case is much, much lower than you would expect and certainly doesn't require intent to injure.

I'm sure this is a situation where some law student preparing a moot court exercise involving intentional torts/negligence issues in sports can probably give a really good analysis of the law here. :)

[gunner 4ever]

It certainly wasn't right for him to do what he did, but a lawsuit seems a bit much. The English(french) are starting to get like the Americans with lawsuits. Hopefully he will recover and be ready for the next season.

not the case at all... 9 months at best.....

[#1 Gunner]

I doubt Wenger will really go through with any legal action. He made the same threat to Mourinho after he called Wenger a "voyeur." I think this is just Wenger's way of venting his frustration, and rightly so.