By Michael S. Carroll, PhD & Andrew L. Goldsmith, PhD
Growing concern over the past few years regarding the impact of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and concussions among athletes in contact sports has resulted in a number of policy and rule changes within a variety of sport organizations. Additionally, litigation has ensued against a number of these organizations, including the National Football League (NFL), the National Hockey League (NHL), and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), mostly based in negligence liability. Although concussions and TBI are most often associated with the sport of football, especially given the recent high-profile $765 NFL concussion settlement, athletes in other sports often face the same if not more extreme physical contact and violence. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (WWE) has operated in the US since 1952, providing professional wrestling entertainment to hundreds of millions of fans through television, film, music, videogames, product licensing, and product sales. It is the largest professional wrestling organization in the world, and hosts hundreds of events a year that are broadcasted to over 650 million viewers in over 170 countries. WWE provides sports entertainment, which could be described as aggressive ballet, to viewers through semi-scripted contests and events between wrestlers, while simultaneously following various storylines. Violence and aggression are a natural part of professional wrestling, and injuries are quite common among wrestlers, sometimes serious in nature.
In October of 2014, former professional wrestler, William Albert Haynes, filed a class action lawsuit in the United Stated Court for the District of Oregon against the WWE in regards to TBI and concussions (Haynes v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Case 3:14-cv-01689-ST, 2014). The proposed Class was defined as:
All persons who currently or formerly wrestled for World Wide Entertainment or a predecessor company, and who reside in the United States.
Excluded from the Class are Defendant, any entity in which Defendant have a controlling interest or which has a controlling interest of Defendant, and Defendant’s legal representatives, assigns and successors. Also excluded are the judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the judge’s immediate family (p. 33).
Haynes wrestled in the WWE for two years, from 1986 to 1988, during which time he wrestled approximately 26-27 days a month, including 97 days in a row at one point. Haynes claims that he was perpetually exhausted during this time, making him more susceptible to injury as well as injuring others. During his tenure with the WWE, Haynes claims that he sustained numerous injuries and was pressured by the WWE to continue wrestling through them, including those relating to his head. He estimates that he suffered at least 15 concussions during his entire wrestling career and many more sub-concussive blows. He claimed that WWE doctors downplayed the serious nature of his head injuries and discouraged him from seeking additional medical help. Haynes also alleges that he was encouraged, and even forced, to take steroids and other illicit drugs from WWE-affiliated physicians and that the WWE intimated that he would be fired if he did not. Haynes claims that no one with the WWE ever warned him about the risks associated with repeated head trauma and that had he been warned he would have not wrestled for the WWE. As a result of head trauma sustained while wrestling for the WWE, Haynes claims that he suffers from both depression and signs of dementia. In the lawsuit, Haynes listed six causes of action, including (a) Fraudulent Concealment and Failure to Disclose or Warn, (b) Negligent Misrepresentation, (c) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, (d) Negligence, (e) Medical Monitoring, and (f) Strict Liability for Abnormally dangerous Activities.
Haynes first claimed that the WWE, “knowingly, fraudulently, and actively misrepresented, omitted, and concealed from wrestlers material facts concerning repetitive head impacts and related injuries” (Haynes v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., 2014, p. 35). According to Haynes, the WWE had a duty to disclose and warn its wrestlers about the actual knowledge it had regarding head injuries and the risks associated with it, so that wrestlers could make an informed decision regarding their careers. The WWE failed to do this through misrepresentations, omissions, and concealment, and these actions were negligent and/or reckless in manner. Had these wrestlers known the true nature of WWE wrestling, they would not have participated in the manner in which they did. As a result, Haynes and other wrestlers suffered physical damage and economic loss through their reliance and are therefore entitled to damages and injunctive relief. With respect to the actual matches themselves, Haynes argues that the WWE had a duty to exercise reasonable care in ensuring safety and quality control for wrestlers and that it breached this duty by ignoring and not properly addressing knowledge it had regarding repetitive head trauma and its associated risks or warning wrestlers. The breach of duty was the proximate cause of damages and economic loss to both Haynes as well as other wrestlers covered in the lawsuit. Haynes further argues that a Court-approved medical monitoring program should be established in order treat and monitor the health of current wrestlers and develop methods to reduce the risks wrestlers face. Finally, Haynes argues that the WWE should be held strictly liable for the injuries sustained by WWE wrestlers, despite any reasonable care taken by the wrestlers, as the activities and conduct that wrestlers subject themselves to at the behest of the WWE are, “outrageous, abnormal, and shocking to the conscience” (p. 40). Haynes is seeking class action certification, an order of medical monitoring, declaratory relief, actual damages, attorney’s fees, compensatory and punitive damages, and other related costs and damages related to the suit.
The WWE denied all allegations made by Haynes and sought dismissal of the case but was denied by Judge Stewart. In June of 2015, however, the judge granted the WWE’s request to move the case to Connecticut, where the WWE headquarters reside. The case currently sits in discovery. Subsequent to Haynes’ suit, at least five other concussion-related lawsuits have been filed against the WWE and have been consolidated. Currently, the WWE is fighting this litigation claiming that the 3-year statute of limitations on tort claims has passed. Haynes argues, however, that he and the other wrestlers covered under the Class were not reasonably able to discover the extent of their injuries related to head trauma, especially given the WWE’s practice of concealment and misrepresentation regarding the risks of head trauma associated with professional wrestling, as described in the complaint.
Michael S. Carroll is an Associate Professor of Sport Management at Troy University specializing in research related to sport law and risk management in sport and recreation.
Andrew L. Goldsmith is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at Coastal Carolina University specializing in research related to organizational behavior and ethical decision-making in sport and recreation.
