Story here:

Stray Sherrin Story

Garbage!

he's an absolute [censored] but with judicial system he'll get something, probably settle out of court for half of what he's asking.

FFS concussion from a footy to the head? Humpty Dumpty would've had a harder cranium than this bloke!

And Patrick Dangerfield.

A few things about this article.

Firstly this happend 5 years ago. Why is it just coming to our attention now. Is this guy still suffering damage.

Remember those days when we were allowed to train on the G.

Seriously who hasnt been hit in the head by a footy. Does this mean in another 5 years more people will be suing us because of last weeks kick to kick after the siren. Because there were footys flying everywhere and I saw 1 guy get smacked by the footy right on top of his head.

Also 180,000 are you serious. Unless you have a serious brain injury or damage then you dont deserve it. Also sue the player not the club.

Another thing pay attention to the surroundings around you and if you wernt wearing a hard hat then that is your fault.

Gosh we are turning into america. Suing everyone for everything.

A few things about this article.

Firstly this happend 5 years ago. Why is it just coming to our attention now. Is this guy still suffering damage.

Remember those days when we were allowed to train on the G.

Seriously who hasnt been hit in the head by a footy. Does this mean in another 5 years more people will be suing us because of last weeks kick to kick after the siren. Because there were footys flying everywhere and I saw 1 guy get smacked by the footy right on top of his head.

Also 180,000 are you serious. Unless you have a serious brain injury or damage then you dont deserve it. Also sue the player not the club.

Another thing pay attention to the surroundings around you and if you wernt wearing a hard hat then that is your fault.

Gosh we are turning into america. Suing everyone for everything.

What about the poor kid from Freo that cops it every other week on the Footy Show!

Priceless!

he's an absolute [censored] but with judicial system he'll get something, probably settle out of court for half of what he's asking.

He's already settled apparently with workchoices

this is just about workchoices recovering money they have agreed to play the [censored]

This isn't about the guy suing the club. He has obviously had a workcover claim and now worksafe are seeking third party recoveries from the MFC deeming they were negligible in contributing to his injury. It does seem a bit over the top ($95k in weekly payments and the rest in medicals) however without knowing the full extent of the injuries you can't really comment. This is the legislation in Victoria for instance if a person sits on a faulty chair and injures their back when the chair collapses worksafe can seek recoveries from the manufacturer ofthe chair for contributing to the injury.

? It must have substance no matter how trivial it seems otherwise workcover would have sniffed out the rat a long time ago and it would never have got to this point.

Can't share your confidence in the infallibility of WorkCover KIL.....

Dont understand why he wouldn't sue the MCG or Grocon .

Wierd one but if he wins it will throw huge financial pressure onto amateur sports played in public parks .

This should have really been a workcover issue dealt with by Grocons policy .

The MCG is Crown land ,governed by a trust .

Did he not wear a hard hat?

Dont understand why he wouldn't sue the MCG or Grocon .

This should have really been a workcover issue dealt with by Grocons policy.

See above. He would have sought workers comp through his employers policy and worksafe are now seeking third party recoveries from MFC for the cost of the claim.

So can we sue Juice for the kick?

See above. He would have sought workers comp through his employers policy and worksafe are now seeking third party recoveries from MFC for the cost of the claim.

Yep. And guess who writes the rules? Worksafe will argue that their exhaustive investigations have shown that safety standards on site were world's best, Grocon encased all their workers in protective padding, the worker was wearing a suit of armour, and it was just criminal negligence from the evil MFC that caused that nasty mean missile to bury itself into the worker's skull. And the County Court will be right on the side of Worksafe. MFC's solicitors will not be able to argue that the worker was negligent, or that the employer was negligent, because Worksafe's meticulous examination has already shown that they were absolutely blameless. And Worksafe generally only bring cases like this if they're sure of their ground.

In other words, it won't be judged according to the truth of the situation, or anything so primitive as common sense. It'll be judged on legal technicalities that Worksafe's lawyers know inside & out.

It's be like playing a combined Crows & Port team on AAMI oval. Everything, fair or foul, mitigates against a win.

You guys seriously have some warped, paranoid, ignorant or all of the above views on this fellow and on the legal system.....

Let's put it this way, the guy didn't just have a football in his face. He sustained quite serious injuries, including his glasses shattering in his eyes and having to be taken in an ambulance to hospital.

So instead of having a go at a guy who got injured in the workplace and dared to exercise his statutory right (not against Melbourne in any event), maybe stop being such keyboard heroes.

Yep. And guess who writes the rules? Worksafe will argue that their exhaustive investigations have shown that safety standards on site were world's best, Grocon encased all their workers in protective padding, the worker was wearing a suit of armour, and it was just criminal negligence from the evil MFC that caused that nasty mean missile to bury itself into the worker's skull. And the County Court will be right on the side of Worksafe. MFC's solicitors will not be able to argue that the worker was negligent, or that the employer was negligent, because Worksafe's meticulous examination has already shown that they were absolutely blameless. And Worksafe generally only bring cases like this if they're sure of their ground.

In other words, it won't be judged according to the truth of the situation, or anything so primitive as common sense. It'll be judged on legal technicalities that Worksafe's lawyers know inside & out.

It's be like playing a combined Crows & Port team on AAMI oval. Everything, fair or foul, mitigates against a win.

Worksafe know the insurer will cave and pay just to avoid paying twice that amount in legal costs, negligence or otherwise has nothing to do with it any more; unless we are talking big bikkies.

You guys seriously have some warped, paranoid, ignorant or all of the above views on this fellow and on the legal system.....

Let's put it this way, the guy didn't just have a football in his face. He sustained quite serious injuries, including his glasses shattering in his eyes and having to be taken in an ambulance to hospital.

So instead of having a go at a guy who got injured in the workplace and dared to exercise his statutory right (not against Melbourne in any event), maybe stop being such keyboard heroes.

You know this how?

You guys seriously have some warped, paranoid, ignorant or all of the above views on this fellow and on the legal system.....

Let's put it this way, the guy didn't just have a football in his face. He sustained quite serious injuries, including his glasses shattering in his eyes and having to be taken in an ambulance to hospital.

So instead of having a go at a guy who got injured in the workplace and dared to exercise his statutory right (not against Melbourne in any event), maybe stop being such keyboard heroes.

We have the right to discuss this as stakeholders in the MFC .

I dont judge the dude but the case looks weak to me .

I think worckcover is taking us on-not the dude.

Workcover lose cases as well- My ex was a prosecutor for them .

Thankfully the Aussie system is good so the guy will be looked after , whatever the result of the case .

As for his glasses getting smashed etc...I dont know .

It is a dicey one. Say you work for the government; you are one these guys who visit homes knocking door to door (most probably through a sub-contractor arrangement) to replace existing light bulbs with energy efficient ones. In getting to the next door you need to knock on, you have to walk on the footpath past a residential construction site. A tradesman is operating an angle grinder on this site, and while performing this duty, a stray metal filing flies off the cutting blade and hits you, rendering you blind in one eye, with a big medical bill and your injuries are permanent and severely impair your ability to earn a living. Who is responsible for your safety? (after yourself of course).

This wouldn't happen from a few grinder sparks even if they went right in your eye .

A drill company in America got sued because a guy bought a drill and put it up his nose , turned it on and up to his brain it went .

The company lost because there was no warning label .

This is approaching that level .

Grocon have done a great job in getting us to take the rap for this .

Someone should do everyone a favour and just knock the bloke! what an absolute [censored]. At the game last Sunday there were kids getting hit on the head when everyone was out on the ground having a kick and I don't see them complaining! Obviously an insurance scam!

In my view:

The duty of care falls between both the employer and the management.

Those managing the hypothetical construction site would be at fault - they have a duty of care towards both the subcontractors and the general public.

It would be the same on the MCG construction site, with the Head Contractor being responsible.

The rest of the stadium would come under the responsibility of the stadium management - they'd have a duty of care to manage the use of the ground as a training facility and ensure the safety of all users.

The facilities management would have to reasonably expect stray kicks to occur if the ground was being used for training purposes.

The MFC can't be held responsible for providing safety to other visitors / users to the facility. That is not their domain.

Oh gosh, yawn.....

I guess the $22,000 covers the cost of having a 'on a tall building construction site it is compulsory to wear protective headgear' tattoo on his arm.

Mind you, I'm getting the feeling it isn't so much the guy lodges the suit, as Workcover trying to offoad the costs onto MFC, who were neither the employer of the person nor the owner of the property nor doing any work for which the MFC had responsibility for. Odd. Makes more sense to sue a chip shop because a Seagull barfed on you.