Skip to content

Lawyer says Riddell is “in very serious trouble” after lawsuit

riddell Getty Images

Rhett Ridolfi, a 22-year-old man who suffered brain damage and partial paralysis while playing high school football in 2008, has been awarded millions of dollars in damages in a lawsuit against the helmet maker Riddell.

And Ridolfi’s attorney, Frank Azar, who is also suing Riddell on behalf of several former NFL players, says this is just the beginning.

I think this jury has said they’re in very serious trouble,” Azar told the Associated Press.

In the case of Ridolfi, a jury in Colorado said he is entitled to $11.5 million in damages for his injuries, and that Riddell is 27 percent responsible, so Riddell will have to pay $3.1 million of the damages. The rest of the damages are largely symbolic, as those damages were awarded against Ridolfi’s coaches, who have immunity as government employees and will not have to pay the damages.

The jury in Ridolfi’s lawsuit did not find that Riddell’s helmets are defective but did find that Riddell didn’t properly warn the players who wear its helmets of the risks associated with brain injuries in football.

“While disappointed in the jury’s decision not to fully exonerate Riddell, we are pleased the jury determined that Riddell’s helmet was not defective in any way,” the company said in a statement.

Permalink 114 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories
114 Responses to “Lawyer says Riddell is “in very serious trouble” after lawsuit”
  1. youreallmorons says: Apr 15, 2013 6:23 AM

    I feel terrible that this happened to such a young kid but this thing with Riddell is going to turn in to a witch hunt real quick.

    Its football that they are playing and if you dont think head injuries can come from a sport where you use your head then you have zero common sense.

    This is all turning in to the lady who spilled coffee on herself at McDonalds and then sued because it was too hot. Its coffee…its hot.

  2. joetoronto says: Apr 15, 2013 6:23 AM

    The whole world is in trouble, thanks to greedy people and ruthless lawyers.

  3. andyreidsbossoms says: Apr 15, 2013 6:26 AM

    True Americans. If you shake someone’s hand to hard they will b suing you

  4. hfntsh says: Apr 15, 2013 6:31 AM

    Riddell did not properly warn the players? Practically every piece of football protective gear has this on it:

    WARNING

    Keep your head up. Do not butt, ram, spear or strike an opponent with any part of the helmet or faceguard. This is a violation of football rules and may cause you to suffer severe brain or neck injury, including paralysis or dealth and possible injury to your opponent. Contact in football may result in Concussion/Brain Injury which no helmet can prevent. Symptons include loss of consciousness or memory, dizziness, headache, nausea or confusion. If you have symptoms, immediately stop and report them to your coach, trainer and parents. Do not return to a game or contact until all symptoms are gone and you receive medial clearance. Ignoring this warning may lead to another and more serious or fatal brain injury.

    NO HELMET SYSTEM CAN PROTECT YOU FROM SERIOUS BRAIN AND/OR NECK INJURIES INCLUDING PARALYSIS OR DEATH. TO AVOID THESE RISKS, DO NOT ENGAGE IN THE SPORT OF FOOTBALL.

  5. barneyrumble says: Apr 15, 2013 6:33 AM

    There is a hole in this dam and no one has a finger big enough to plug it, this is just the beginning indeed.

  6. clarencewhorley says: Apr 15, 2013 6:34 AM

    It was one political party that wanted tort reform, but America voted for the party that demonized capitalism and funded by lawyers who want zero restrictions on who they can sue and how much money they sue for.

  7. eagleswin says: Apr 15, 2013 6:35 AM

    What a joke. This is all about some jury feeling sorry for a guy and not about actual responsibility. The helmet manufacturer, whose helmet wasn’t even defective, foots the bill even though the people who were responsible for his wellbeing, the coaches, were exempt.

    I feel bad for the kid but Riddell should appeal this, it appears the jury overstepped their bounds.

    It’s always about finding someone with deep pockets to blame and not justice.

  8. ravenatorlikesboysbeeholez says: Apr 15, 2013 6:36 AM

    I mean Riddell’s statement says it all. They got sued even though the “helmet was not defective in any way.” Medicine still doesn’t understand the dynamics of brain injury and somehow Riddell is liable to try to explain them to players? Shameful.

  9. jackdaniels1 says: Apr 15, 2013 6:42 AM

    That hot chick at the bar I had plans on going home with rejected me and hurt my feelings – can I sue her?

  10. fishyinalittledishy says: Apr 15, 2013 6:43 AM

    My heart goes out to this young player and his friends and family, but come on how can Riddell be partly at fault for this tragic incident by not putting a warning in the helmet that football is dangerous. The player needs financial help for his family to look after him off course but to blame a company for non defective design and goods is loon-icy. When is all this covering ones ass going to get sensible. Then why doesn’t all transport have the warning that traveling on this bus etc might cause death to the passenger or to others or this golf ball might cause the loss of another players sight if struck in the eye.

  11. 619sdfan4life says: Apr 15, 2013 6:49 AM

    I’m very sorry that kid was injured permanently as a result of playing football. I would never wish that on anyone.

    But this law suit reminds me of the lady who sued McDonalds for not telling her the coffee she bought was hot, now we have “Caution contents may be Hot”. Now our helmets are going to have a warning label. “Caution may cause paralysis”. Way to go scumbag lawyer.

  12. ar1888 says: Apr 15, 2013 6:49 AM

    All this means is the price will passed on to the consumer. Get ready for your nfl tickets to go up more then the 50% they have already gone up in the last 10 years.

  13. skiss68 says: Apr 15, 2013 6:51 AM

    This is a god damn money grabbing joke!!! You think warning people is gonna stop them from playing football? I guess im gonna sue Harley Davidson if i get in a motorcycle accident!

  14. rowdyrebel says: Apr 15, 2013 6:51 AM

    Our insane legal system is why folks can’t afford medical care, insurance, the cost of goods, etc… Jeez, I feel bad for the guy but you can’t give a dude a settlement based on a sticker not being on the side of a helmet. He and his parents knew the risks and if they say they didn’t then they are bold faced liars. Ever hear of Mike Utley, Darryl Stingley…

    What a free loading society we have. All these something for nothing people.

  15. trojanwarrior007 says: Apr 15, 2013 6:52 AM

    and people wonder why American companies hide assets/set up shop overseas.

  16. csilojohnson says: Apr 15, 2013 6:58 AM

    I hate that arguement. “They didn’t warn me that smashing my head all day would cause damage”
    Can nobody take care of themselves these days? Or is everyone just that oportunistic?

  17. thebaffler12 says: Apr 15, 2013 7:02 AM

    youreallmorons: You should do some research into the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit…you may find that you actually only know what McDonald’s and the rest of Corporate America want you to know.

  18. jaypace says: Apr 15, 2013 7:06 AM

    And this is why football is becoming flag football. It’s like smoking for thirty years then saying “what?! this smoke I was inhaling is bad for me, how can that be?” Not that this guy played for years, any player at the high school level and up knows when you strap it on there are risks involved in ramming faces together play after play, you don’t need the helmet maker to tell you that.

  19. steelerfan9598 says: Apr 15, 2013 7:15 AM

    With greedy lawyers and politicians at the top and welfare leeches and illegals at the bottom, the people who actually WORK every day are stuck watching the country collapse.

  20. mungman69 says: Apr 15, 2013 7:26 AM

    They CAN make helmets that can reduce concussions dramatically. They may be large and funny looking but they will work.

  21. tbtrojan says: Apr 15, 2013 7:31 AM

    The #1 question I want somebody to ask (pointblank) one of these people who’s on a concussion related cash grab
    “Why do you think you were told, not asked, to wear a protective helmet, among many other protective items, while playing a game where you run full speed into other people. Do you think maybe it was to make you all look pretty on the field or because football is a violent game where there are real risks of head injury/trauma and other devastating injuries? You don’t see so much protection being iussed to those playing golf do you?”

  22. Patriot42 says: Apr 15, 2013 7:34 AM

    Why would any company want to make a helmet used in football now that the witch hunt has started.

  23. lightcleric says: Apr 15, 2013 7:35 AM

    Putting aside whether the verdixt is right or not, my question is why should government employees have that kind of immunity?

  24. skinsrock says: Apr 15, 2013 7:40 AM

    Maybe they can lobby for the Riddell Protection Act.

  25. ghostfacenoah says: Apr 15, 2013 7:41 AM

    As a law student who just finished studying torts (and negligence), I’m shocked that the court would find that Riddell was at all responsible for his injuries. I would expect this decision to be appealed and likely overturned. The policy considerations are just too great.

  26. ironman721 says: Apr 15, 2013 7:44 AM

    A horrible situation just got a lot worse!

  27. madmike66 says: Apr 15, 2013 7:50 AM

    This is why I’d never opt for a jury trial…never leave your fate in the hands of a dozen idiots.

    Seriously, if you can argue with a straight face that you were unaware of the risks of head injury while playing a sport that REQUIRES you to wear a helmet to protect your head…

  28. geauxjay says: Apr 15, 2013 7:55 AM

    Great. Sean Payton will be suspended for another year now.

  29. pkrjones says: Apr 15, 2013 7:56 AM

    Next up: Sock manufacturer sued for not giving enough support and that ankle injuries are 27% the fault of poor sock design.

  30. geauxjay says: Apr 15, 2013 7:59 AM

    Don’t let outrageous settlements and corporate propaganda brainwash you into believing that big business is innocent. A helmet is supposed to protect you for injury. THAT’S WHY YOU WEAR THEM. If it does not do that, then why do you wear them in the first place? Why does Riddell have million dollar contracts to supply football leagues with helmets? Because they look cool?

  31. jdcush31 says: Apr 15, 2013 8:01 AM

    This story makes me sick. A company that decides to make a high quality product, that people want, and gets sued for not warning people against possible head injuries? What a joke!

  32. mattsffrd says: Apr 15, 2013 8:03 AM

    I’m suing the company that makes spoons because they made me fat

  33. kenstabler says: Apr 15, 2013 8:04 AM

    Wow, this verdict basically defines a helmet the same as a hand gun. A deadly instrument that must have a warning label.

    I’m sure the parents signed a release form so their son could play football, and knew the possible but remote dangers of letting their son play. But no, it’s the helmets fault. Unbelievable, only in America.

    My dad played football with a leather helmet. I’m sure if the lawyers back in his day could have gotten away with it, they would have sued the owner of the cow.

  34. gpclaw says: Apr 15, 2013 8:06 AM

    Ridell plans on appealing the decision. Here’s to hoping their appeal is successful. It would be different if their product was found to be defective, but it wasn’t.

  35. atwatercrushesokoye says: Apr 15, 2013 8:08 AM

    I feel badly this kid suffered these injuries, but there’s a warning sticker on the back of every single helmet produced, not sure what else Riddell is supposed to do. A jury can be swayed by emotion, hopefully an appellate court will hear this and decide if there was actual negligence or if the jury allowed the emotion from a tragic event to get in the way of reason.

  36. anarchopurplism says: Apr 15, 2013 8:09 AM

    Its sad when many Americans think that they path to riches is legalized plunder, ie theft.

  37. mhohmann says: Apr 15, 2013 8:11 AM

    Why is the manufacturers job to warn people about the dangers of football?

    Is it Ford’s job to warn people on the dangers of Driving?

    Pathetic. Lawyers and Politicians have ruined this country.

  38. cwwgk says: Apr 15, 2013 8:17 AM

    That lawyer’s claim about Riddell is borne out of desperation. He just lost. The jury found nothing wrong with the helmets. The lawyer is resorting to claims in the media because he knows he can’t be taken seriously elsewhere after that verdict.

    The only real point of interest is that the attorney isn’t Peter Ginsberg.

  39. vincentbojackson says: Apr 15, 2013 8:18 AM

    How can a player not know the risks? There’s a mandatory warning label on the back of every helmet in order to be certified for use.

    We’re a country full of people that like to blame others for our misfortune and everyone’s out for a money grab.

  40. therillest says: Apr 15, 2013 8:19 AM

    Yeah, my dad told me how dangerous football was and make sure I could see what I was hitting (keep head/eyes up). If his dad didn’t tell him that, he should sue him too! Right?

  41. bluepike says: Apr 15, 2013 8:22 AM

    Million dollar civil lawsuits – the great new “American Dream” lives on.

  42. prospero63 says: Apr 15, 2013 8:25 AM

    Two words. Tort reform. How damages can be awarded when no defects were found is beyond me. Where’s the negligence?

  43. kerryc21realty says: Apr 15, 2013 8:26 AM

    I’m sick of all these law suits. These players made millions of dollars knowing it was a risk to play in the NFL and now they are lining up to sue the league. Now they all have memory loss and headaches.I have no sympathy for them

  44. kotapug says: Apr 15, 2013 8:26 AM

    This lawsuit is a joke ! And people wonder why this country is turning to crap . I bought a new butter knife and it did not warn me of the damage it could cause if I jabbed it into my eye . No think I’m going to sue !

  45. mrbigass says: Apr 15, 2013 8:29 AM

    If they find the right court, it could be overturned on appeal. Not a giant sum but would they want to start a precedent and pay it anyway?

  46. lo6icalvoice says: Apr 15, 2013 8:29 AM

    Why did he think he was wearing the helmet in the first place?? Most ridiculous thing i’ve ever seen.

  47. ajferraro says: Apr 15, 2013 8:31 AM

    So Riddell is required to warn people that they may still get injured playing football while wearing their helmet? How is that not already known to the players, from a common sense perspective? No different than wearing a thigh pad doesnt prevent a broken femur (and no one would assume that it does), safety equipment is meant to mitigate potential injuries, not prevent them.

    If Riddell said emphatically that “using this helmet will prevent concussions”, then I understand the case against them, but otherwise, its shaky to me.

    If you dont want to risk getting injured, than don’t play football.

  48. harrisonhits2 says: Apr 15, 2013 8:32 AM

    Very sorry for the kid but this sort of thing is why the nfl will be a flag football league in 10 years.

    What I don’t understand is why players don’t have to sign waivers. I used to skydive when I was younger and every place I jumped at I had to sign a waiver assuming all risks associated with a dangerous sport.

  49. heartless85 says: Apr 15, 2013 8:39 AM

    This is becoming ridiculous! You sign up knowing damn well what could happen!

  50. scratchdad says: Apr 15, 2013 8:39 AM

    Google: McDonald’s, coffee, woman, burn. Look at pictures.

    She alerted their lids do not stay on. No reply. She asked for medical bill help. Middle finger. She sued, won. McDonald’s sourced a new cup/lid and lowered coffee temp so multiple skin graphs not necessary if spilled due to faulty lid. Corporate spin – frivolous. Reality – disturbing.

    Know what you are talking about. Not even close to same thing if helmet not ruled defective.

  51. SeenThisB4 says: Apr 15, 2013 8:44 AM

    Riddell is 27 percent responsible? I’d like to see the mathematical logic that came with that decision. Probably makes less sense than the 40 percent that the lawyer is going to get of that 27 percent. It’s all about money. Pure and simple, there is no justice here, no altruism, just greed. The one guy who should benefit, will probably see the smallest benefit.

  52. seattlenative57 says: Apr 15, 2013 8:53 AM

    Most people still don’t get it, including the posters here. It’s not about jumping on the bandwagon and getting undeservedly rich. People who believe that are football apologists. This whole thing is about organizations, both manufacturers and institutions, like the NFL, which had data proving injury occurrence and did nothing with it. I agree people playing football should recognize its violence and injury potential. But are you supposed to know that 10, 15 maybe 20 years after you stop playing you’ll experience brain damage, even if you sustained no major concussions while playing. That you might have permanent brain damage just from playing the sport normally. These companies had studies and tests showing long-term damage under normal circumstances. That’s the exception. Everyone who plays football expects to be injured, but not permanently, without major concussions along the way. These companies and institutions knew and intentionally kept it from the players.

  53. dolphinfansam says: Apr 15, 2013 8:57 AM

    Sometimes the law gets taken too literal. I understand that players cannot assume all of the risk if they don’t know all of the risks, but head injuries in football are known. Concussions aren’t a new thing. Why do people buy a helmet in the first place? Because they know that football is a dangerous sport. If the plaintiff can honestly say that they thought a helmet would make them immune to all head I juries, they could have grounds to sue. But this information is common knowledge, and should not have to be disclosed by Ridell. At what point does Nike get sued for providing cleats to players without telling players they can break an ankle or leg?

  54. thehouseofho says: Apr 15, 2013 8:57 AM

    This is absolutely ridiculous. Riddell, a helmet maker, is being told they have to warn people about brain injuries?! Why else would they be making helmets?! If you’re buying a helmet, you’re obviously not ignorant of the risk of brain injury.

    Some people should be mandated to wear warning labels like, “No Common Sense,” “Will Sue Because I’m Dumb,” “Gullible Juror,” “Greedy Lawyer.”

  55. squared80 says: Apr 15, 2013 9:00 AM

    The word of the day is ‘frivolous’… and we’re great at using it.

  56. replacementwriter says: Apr 15, 2013 9:03 AM

    There will no longer be room for team logos on the helmet because soon it will be covered in warning labels. Just another example of lawyers ruining the country with ridiculous lawsuits. There should have been a warning that says “If you do no realize any activity that requires a helmet could involve risk to your head, you should probably be wearing a helmet 24/7″.

  57. lonespeed says: Apr 15, 2013 9:05 AM

    This is not good for football in general.

    If the primary helmet maker for the NFL is being sued and in trouble of going under from safety lawsuits, then who’s going to get in line to make the next helmet?

    At what point does potential liability out-weight the opportunity cost? And to cover that liability, how much more do the helmets then have to cost to manufacture?

    Thus leading to even more increases in the product they put on the field, which inevitably will be put on the fans shoulders to carry through ticket prices, parking, and concesssions.

    Furthermore, if these lawsuits are reasonable and the sport cannot be played safe, equipment manufacturers aren’t the only problem the sport will have.

    More and more parents are not going to allow their children to play, and that will hurt the sport overall as well.

  58. FinFan68 says: Apr 15, 2013 9:07 AM

    Helmets are designed to prevent skull fractures, not concussions. This sympathetic jury got it wrong, IMHO. It’s like suing the maker of knee pads because you tore an ACL.

  59. eaglesnoles05 says: Apr 15, 2013 9:09 AM

    I remember a warning on my riddell helmets I wore from 1990-1999, all telling me to watch out for serious injury or death. Did they remove those? Or have we determined that warning someone of serious injury or death does not properly warn someone of serious injury or death?

  60. milkcan44 says: Apr 15, 2013 9:12 AM

    If you look at the history of the Riddell company, it’s a wonder they hang on in the business when most of their competitors exited years ago. If they can protect their liability by increasing the “warnings”, they can survive, but if the lawyers win suits over product defects, insurance coverage will be difficult to obtain and the NFL or other football organizations will have to support their own equipment maker.

  61. steelersmichele says: Apr 15, 2013 9:14 AM

    with that logic, I can sue Honda if I get into a car accident since the salesman, financial guy, and the suits at corporate never sent me a letter or called me to warn me I could get hurt in a car accident.

    and no excuses that there’s language in my paperwork. I’m sure Riddell had language to use the helmet properly, too, but with all the attention given to this issue, money is going to be awarded to prove a point.

  62. fumblenuts says: Apr 15, 2013 9:22 AM

    I’m going to sue my boss and the company. Waking up early to go to work as made me a very grumpy person……..

  63. bartlettruss says: Apr 15, 2013 9:28 AM

    For all the people making McDonald’s comments you should know that that coffee was scalding hot and gave her severe burns. Next time your spouse asks you to bring them a cup of coffee try putting it in the microwave for two minutes on high then handing it to him or her. After you spend the rest of the day at the hospital and you are trying to locate a good divorce lawyer you might reflect that “hot” is not a temperature.

    That said, I think that the helmet maker got robbed here. If you have to wear a helmet to do something then that thing is being flagged as dangerous implicitly. I guess Everlast will be getting sued for murder next…

  64. sfm073 says: Apr 15, 2013 9:30 AM

    To be fair the coffee lady got some serious burns from the coffee and spent 8 days in the hospital. McDonald was serving their coffee way too hot and deservedly loss the lawsuit.

  65. thejohnsmith1122 says: Apr 15, 2013 9:35 AM

    Can I go back and sue my elementary school for not advising me to wear protective gear when playing tackle football at recess? I swear I hit my head a couple times on the frozen ground during winter.

    This is just a bunch of BS of people trying to get money from multi-million/billion dollar industries and the jury is actually falling for it. In fact, I bet most of these juries don’t even give a crap about justice. Due to the economy and hard times, the jury probably feels these companies should “give” something back.

  66. pftfanatic says: Apr 15, 2013 9:42 AM

    Like others have said, the mere fact that one is engaging in an activity that requires a helmet should be a clue that a head injury is possible.

  67. abninf says: Apr 15, 2013 9:48 AM

    I’m suing Everlast because their boxing glove broke my nose.

  68. kennymooseandgoose says: Apr 15, 2013 9:51 AM

    It’s 100% assumed responsibility by the voluntary player. If the equipment company bore even 1% responsibility, then it needs to be shown where they were negligent. It’s a rough sport, and the equipment manufacturer can’t change that. (We all know which political party is PRO trial lawyers, and anti Tort Reform.)

  69. NotoriousKDV says: Apr 15, 2013 9:51 AM

    It’s the helmet maker’s fault that people don’t know about the dangers of football? What a joke. If the helmets were bad then that’s one thing. But it appears that they didn’t find fault with the helmets at all yet Riddell still has to pay? It’s time people took personal responsibility for their problems instead of always trying to blame someone else.

    I mean we all learn in school the dangers that alcohol and drugs can do to the brain and how brain cells don’t grow back. So common sense should have told everyone a long time ago that repeated head trauma from something like playing football would lead to similar brain problems. Yet all these players want to claim ignorance just because they were never told about the risks by coaches, the NFL or in this case a helmet company? Come on. Is society really that stupid. Do they really lack the common sense to be able to figure this stuff out for themselves? Does everything really have to be spelled out to everyone all the time? If so then what a sad society we live in.

  70. kennymooseandgoose says: Apr 15, 2013 10:02 AM

    Can he sue his parents for letting him play? Can he sue the other players that came into contact with him? Can he sue the Head Coach? Can he sue the doctor who brought him into this world? Somewhere there is a trial lawyer who thinks there is a case, and a jury with no accountability.

  71. diamondmike2 says: Apr 15, 2013 10:04 AM

    Riddell is 27 percent responsible, so Riddell will have to pay $3.1 million of the damages. The rest of the damages are largely symbolic, as those damages were awarded against…

    Ridolfi’s coaches, who have immunity as government employees and will not have to pay the damages.

    Government Employees? off the hook for
    $8, 400,000.00

  72. tg2121 says: Apr 15, 2013 10:05 AM

    shame on riddell, trying to prevent head injuries with protective equipment…

  73. replacementwriter says: Apr 15, 2013 10:07 AM

    They should’ve sued the public education system in America for producing idiots w/o common sense, I’m not necessarily talking about the high school kid but the jury!!!

  74. seals1 says: Apr 15, 2013 10:14 AM

    I’ve always giggled off the comments that football may be gone in 10-15 years due to the head injury issues. After reading this story we may be lucky to get another 10 years.

    Welcome to a Soccer future ladies and gentelman

  75. isphet71 says: Apr 15, 2013 10:14 AM

    Somehow I doubt warning labels will prevent idiots suing manufacturers for their own screw-ups.

    Once every product for sale has a warning label, companies will start getting sued for not doing a good enough job in writing the label “I was SO CONFUSED by the wording on that label!”

    Or they may get sued for not having the label in an appropriate spot in the box. “I never saw the label because it fell out of the helmet and was in the packaging.”

    So much for people taking responsibility for their own lives and well being. It’s always someone else’s fault.

  76. rkt4mayor says: Apr 15, 2013 10:20 AM

    To make clear the absolute nonsense of former players suing the NFL and helmet companies let us make an analogy:

    This is akin to a volunteer soldier suing the U.S. government because he was injured in combat.

    Or a policeman or fire fighter suing a city because he was injured doing the job the city pays him to do.

    It is manifest nonsense for these shyster parasite lawyers to sue on behalf of clients who knew what they were getting into and decided to take the risk of playing football.

  77. newjerseygiants says: Apr 15, 2013 10:20 AM

    I only started reading since I thought the headline said: “Goodell in very serious trouble after lawsuit”.

  78. skns2thend says: Apr 15, 2013 10:22 AM

    Does this mean I can sue Nike baseball caps for going bald??
    The parents need to accept I responsibility in this kids injury. Cause I’m sure they got the ball rolling on this law suit. They’re (the jury) treating Riddell like Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds. Riddell has been making helmets longer than I’ve been alive. Damn, it’s a contact sport….there is a possibility of injury.

  79. showtyme34 says: Apr 15, 2013 10:28 AM

    Maybe the first sign that you could have brain injuries playing football is that they require you to wear a helmet!

    The problem with law is that it doesn’t account for common sense. The problem with common sense is that it is not very common.

  80. rayswhitesuit says: Apr 15, 2013 10:28 AM

    Don’t forget: the law firm stands to earn in the neighborhood of 35% of the money awarded to this kid. Justice served!

    I blame the Baby Boomers: for years, there were only two career options for their kids (particularly sons) that they cared about: doctor or lawyer. Well, in most cases, you have to be pretty damned smart to be a doctor, so what we are left with is a surfeit of lawyers and the need for them to have something to do. Voila! Welcome to the Age of the Personal Injury Lawsuit, which hit its stride with the McDonald’s coffee suit other posters have mentioned. Just yesterday, at Home Depot, my 11-year old son wanted to know why they had to mention on the bag of Kingsford charcoal briquettes that you shouldn’t light them in, among other places, a car. We now live in a world ruled by a lack of common sense and personal responsibility.

  81. rkt4mayor says: Apr 15, 2013 10:32 AM

    I’m suing Dell Computers and the makers of cubicles because instead of living my dream of having a corner office and being CEO of the company, I am just a cog in the machine forced to work at a Dell computer in a cubicle!

    Oh the inhumanity…

  82. qdog2013 says: Apr 15, 2013 10:41 AM

    I smirk everytime someone compares a frivulous lawsuit to the McDonalds coffee lawsuit from 20 years ago. Please educate yourselves and read the details of the lawsuit before posting ridiculous comments. Yes coffee is hot but coffee shouldnt be scalding hot that it removes layers of skin. McDonalds violated product liability by having their restaurants adjust the coffee nearly 30 degree hotter.

    I will read more about the Riddell judgement before making a final decision.

  83. yevrag3535 says: Apr 15, 2013 10:46 AM

    Sue the coach, the school, the parents, the cops, the firemen, the army, navy and the catholic church. When is this crap going to stop? It is stupid.

  84. nflgiant says: Apr 15, 2013 10:46 AM

    It is like well Peyton throws an interception,in playoffs,that I had a big bet on,I lose the game,so now I will sue Payton,because it is his fault.Only in America,folks.

  85. hgfrombc2 says: Apr 15, 2013 10:51 AM

    I don’t know who manufactures the shoulder pads, but are they now open to litigation when a player separates a shoulder or breaks a collar bone?

  86. thingamajig says: Apr 15, 2013 11:00 AM

    Alot of people here blaming lawyers and politicans but 11 people on a jury voted for the outcome. I wonder why. This story must have something missing.

  87. daltex says: Apr 15, 2013 11:08 AM

    Who knew that so many football fans hated the american jury system? Without hearing any evidence or argument you assume this is a tragic defeat for justice…hell, we’ve got some 1L in here who just finished torts telling us an appellate court will overturn the verdict when he doesnt even know what if any error was committed. You guys are stupid.

  88. scchamil says: Apr 15, 2013 11:25 AM

    Sometimes letting 11 random peers decide these things is not the best way. It’s human nature to see horrible personal suffering and tragedy and then attempt to find blame. In this case, it’s a disaster. If that warning that someone posted above is truling on the equipment boxes – then this is a travesty.

  89. majormeatcurtains says: Apr 15, 2013 11:26 AM

    Lawyers pushed out U.S. motorcycle helmet Mfgrs. with these same greedy, ridiculous tactics. Members of the jury, their son drove a Kawasaki H2 into a concrete pillar at 145 MPH and the helmet failed to save his life. I ask you now, should they continue their lives in the middle class? Shouldn’t the multimillion dollar Bell company make them millionaires also? I rest my case.
    Sorry for your son folks but kids get injured everyday. More often while participating in contact and extreme sports. I hope this gets appealed, it’s time to end the gravy train.

  90. hawkforlife says: Apr 15, 2013 11:34 AM

    Aside from the obvious this lawyer ought to be held in contempt for uttering this:

    “I think this jury has said they’re in very serious trouble,” Azar told the Associated Press.

    If that’s his idea of serious money in today’s lawsuit world then he’s smoking way too much.

  91. Dusty Grey says: Apr 15, 2013 11:39 AM

    I’m not sure why everyone has their jocks all in a twist. They are a billion dollar company. 3 million is nothing to them, and the have insurance to specifically cover this anyway.

    In the mean time this kid will need very expensive round the clock care, that most people could never afford. It’s not like this kid is going to be sitting on his ass drinking beers and playing video games…

  92. Patriot42 says: Apr 15, 2013 11:48 AM

    The government is full of them and as they screw that up they will eventually destroy the NFL. Lawyers have and will continue to destroy everything they touch.

  93. finsuppatsdown says: Apr 15, 2013 11:51 AM

    First of all, the verdict against Riddell is ridiculous. However to all the people requesting tort reform, you don’t know what your asking for. The only thing tort reform will do is allow insurance companies to not pay legitimate claims. Believe me, no one except insurance companies want tort reform. The vast majority of big money cases are legitimate and very necessary. Cases against big corporations and oil companies for example. However, the public only hears about the ridiculous ones. To those who are saying that lawyers are the reason that health insurance goes up you are uninformed. Insurance companies are the only reason prices go up. They don’t go down when their are no claims. They only go up when the greedy sob’s want more money. It us all about crooked insurance companies. There are bad lawyers out there, but the real problem with this country is insurance companies.

  94. earvinmagicjackson says: Apr 15, 2013 12:01 PM

    Has anyone cornered the “I got brain freeze from iced coffee” market yet? If not, I got dibs on that one.

  95. granadafan says: Apr 15, 2013 12:06 PM

    This lawyer is pure and utter scum. The jury is the same type of imbeciles who let OJ and Casey Anthony get away with murder.

    Now we know why we have these ridiculous warning labels on every item and why Roger is seemingly ruining the NFL. The lawyers have once again ruined everything.

  96. jsavage58 says: Apr 15, 2013 12:10 PM

    Right or Wrong on Riddels part, when the first equipment manufacture loses a case, they will start pulling out of the football equipment business. And that will be the beginning of the end of football(ok, not the beginning since its already headed that way anyway)

  97. nejerseygirl says: Apr 15, 2013 12:10 PM

    You can’t compare this lawsuit to the McDonald’s coffee case. That woman sued because McDonald’s coffee was too hot (as it could cause 3rd degree burns), the company knew it was too hot (for more than 1o years), the coffee had severely burned hundreds of people before, and McDonald’s did nothing about it.

    The only way this case could compare to the coffee case is if Riddell’s helmets were defective, the company knew they were defective, but they chose to ignore the problem. If that were the situation, I wouldn’t blame this young man for suing.

    However, Riddell should not be held responsible for what happened. They are essentially being punished for creating a good helmet that most likely saved this person’s life.

  98. thetooloftools says: Apr 15, 2013 12:23 PM

    It’s called “assumed risk”. If the players didn’t know playing football could cause brain damage, how were the helmet makers?
    Once again… injury lawyers running wild.

  99. firstclasspack says: Apr 15, 2013 12:33 PM

    This is like suing Chevrolet or Ford after you are injured in an accident because they didn’t warn you that driving could be dangerous. The helmet was not defective and there was no negligence on Ridelle’s part. I feel bad for the kid but it’s not Ridelle’s fault and somewhere along the line our legal system failed miserably in this one.

  100. normdogg says: Apr 15, 2013 12:39 PM

    If you can’t figure out on your own that running around and crashing into other people at full speed (football) comes with the inherent risk of a head injury, you should probably be wearing a helmet full time.

  101. Stiller43 says: Apr 15, 2013 12:58 PM

    “The jury in Ridolfi’s lawsuit did not find that Riddell’s helmets are defective but did find that Riddell didn’t properly warn the players who wear its helmets of the risks associated with brain injuries in football.”

    Theres a reason you wear a helmet to play the sport…hint, its covering your BRAIN.

    I feel sorry for the guy, but the ruling is BS assuming the helmets werent defective.

  102. tincansailor981 says: Apr 15, 2013 1:58 PM

    RIDDell is in trouble? Crap, I misread, I thought it said GOODell is in trouble.

  103. bookofelisha says: Apr 15, 2013 2:37 PM

    greedy will destroy the nfl.

  104. fearthehoody says: Apr 15, 2013 2:47 PM

    Not trying to be funny but, a sad day for America!

  105. blackngold4life says: Apr 15, 2013 4:12 PM

    I was using Riddell back in pop warner..way before they came out with the Air or water cushion padding..over 35 years ago. Then we started using BIKE BRAND..more expensive but well worth it. If the NFL can use Riddell then anybody can. This is BS

  106. jebdamone says: Apr 15, 2013 4:36 PM

    i think its hilarious that everyone always blames the lawyer. a lawyer’s job is to advocate for their client. we are supposed to be pissed that the guy did his job well?

  107. michaelvicklikespoodlesandnoodles says: Apr 15, 2013 6:59 PM

    The lawyers in this country are going to reduce professional football to a M video game if this keeps up. (And they’ll probably STILL sue EA for causing wicked cases of gameplayer’s palsy or mopey finger or whatever the next disease of the week turns out to be).

  108. michaelvicklikespoodlesandnoodles says: Apr 15, 2013 7:00 PM

    Why was my post deleted? It talked about exactly the same thing others are talking about re the McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit. I’ll repeat the post here – please don’t delete this one unless it violates the rules here. (And it would be helpful to TELL ME if it does violate the rules instead of just having it go off into never-never land.)

    @youreallmorons: Once again you parrot the McDonalds company line about the hot coffee lawsuit. The coffee the woman spilled was 40 degrees hotter than industry standard, resulting in her suffering third-degree burns to her pelvic area. And the woman and McDonalds settled out of court for less than $600,000, just enough to cover her extensive medical bills, not the “millions and millions” of dollars that you’ve been told she received.

  109. dee274 says: Apr 15, 2013 11:07 PM

    Wow. What I’d like to know is out of all these comments, which six of YOU were on the jury? Oh, none? Ok, then, which of you were an audience member in the courtroom? Which of you heard ALL THE TESTIMONY?? How about those of you who heard directly from a juror who deliberated for hours and hours that day? Point is, you don’t know all the facts.

  110. jddre says: Apr 17, 2013 11:02 PM

    Ok, let me ask: what will ‘football’ do when NOBODY is making helmets anymore out of fear of lawsuits?

  111. jerrygray721 says: Apr 18, 2013 7:32 PM

    i wonder if the day is coming where companys are just gonna give up and close their doors put countless people out of work, stop production and demand common sense be applied to the laws of this land before they make another item.people can thumbs down me all they want but the worst problem this nation has is it’s legal system the laws of this country are in desperate need of reform and have been for quite some time. it is a system made by lawyers for lawyers and it really is the main reason this nation is going down hill so fast.riddell is a case in point the helmet was not the issue but yet they have to pay 3.1 mil for something they didn’t do thats are legal system for ya and there are so many other cases out there like this.only in america can you be in the right but still have to pay it’s really sad.

  112. jerrygray721 says: Apr 18, 2013 8:13 PM

    @DEE274- you dont need to know all the facts it is clear that the helmet was not the issue but riddell has to pay anyway thats why so many are posting their displeasure here and quite honestly i dont see how anyone can agree with the jury here atleast not with riddell’s part of it.riddell’s product was NOT the problem so why is it they have to pay???? if it were coming out of your pocket i’d bet you would feel the same way

  113. stevet321 says: Apr 18, 2013 10:25 PM

    IMHO: I’ll throw in with the overturned-on-appeal crowd. The minor child has been indeed been damaged but the negligence burden of proof for Riddell is probably questionable at best and likely to be overcome.

    And they might need to spend more money on a better attorney.

    Speaking from personal experience…my $200/hr attorney was worth his weight in gold during my divorce. Worth every penny… to the tune of saving me $400/month initially and later $900/month…forever.

    As a wise man once noted “…facts don’t win cases, lawyers do.”

  114. ruvelligwebuike says: Apr 22, 2013 2:26 PM

    The personal injury attorney’s standard Facebook posts.

    “It’s time we stop the evils of these greedy corporations! -at our other vacation home, Kauai.

    “Time to get my daughter her starter car. Can’t believe she’s driving!”-at Crown Mercedes.

    “The poison I put out to kill that greedy rat that ate my bird seed killed a greed-filled raccoon! No warning label about other wildlife on that poison! Is there no end to their greed? They will pay me for this!”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!