Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Morkel, post: 2790481, member: 8215"] There has to be a legal reason he's going after McClean. Maybe, like a car accident, McKinnon is able to claim against the other person's insurance too, if the payout limit of his own does not cover the agreed value of the damages. If the max is $500k, he gets his own and McKinnon's. If that's the case it's pretty petty. What I want to know is, if he's claiming a loss of lifestyle from the injury, is the lifestyle he's referring to the one of a successful professional sportsperson, or a grunt laborer? Because from where I sit, he can't have it both ways. The sport is what would afford him the better lifestyle, if he accepts that opportunity he accepts the risk. If he argues that the NRL did not fully inform him of the risks, then the implication would be that, [I]had[/I] he been informed, he would have chosen not to play. If that's the case, he doesn't get to sue for the loss of lifestyle of a star, and the opportunities that came after, he gets to sue for the loss of lifestyle of an anonymous grunt. I expect the costs to uphold each would be quite different. That's really badly worded. You know what I'm getting at, right? [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 45 (members: 0, guests: 45)