The mother of a Pennsylvania youth football player and her son sued the Warwick Midget Football League, Red Rose Midget Football League (which does business as Red Rose), and several individual defendants in September, alleging they were responsible for the traumatic brain injury that the son suffered during a football game.
The injury to the plaintiff’s son, L.R. Rettew, occurred on September 17, 2017 during a game. L.R. then complained to some of the individual defendants that he was experiencing “headaches, disorientation, while also displaying signs and symptoms of a head injury and/or concussion, including dizziness, disorientation and confusion.
“Despite the complaints, the defendants named herein allowed L.R. to return to the field of play, and he suffered multiple injuries, including, but not limited to, a traumatic brain injury and concussion.”
The plaintiffs further contend that the defendants “knew, or should have known, of the risk of head injury to L.R. when allowing him top continue playing football despite L.R.’s complaints and visible signs of head injury.”
In her first cause of action, the plaintiff alleged the leagues exhibited “negligence, gross negligence, carelessness and reckless conduct,” including, among other things, the following:
Failing to competently examine the minor
Failing to timely examine the minor
Failing to provide appropriate equipment to protect minor
Failing to provide minor with proper safety equipment, while playing a contact sport
Failing to ensure that football equipment was properly maintained
Supplying defective helmets to minors
Failing to undergo proper training as required by the League’s bylaws
Failing to have licensed physicians and/or other properly trained medical professionals on hand
The second cause of action, also for negligence, targeted the individual defendants, and included many of the same specific allegations listed above.
The defendants filed an objection in late September, claiming the allegations in the lawsuit “are virtually identical to those raised” in a lawsuit filed in March 2018.
“It is clear that Plaintiffs have attempted to gain a do-over of their earlier pleading by bringing this ‘new’ action – much to the detriment of objecting defendants who have already spent significant time, money and resources in the defense of the 2018 action,” according to the objection.
The defendants further complained that “by attempting to restart the process with a new complaint on a new docket, plaintiffs have been granted almost 19 months of pre-complaint discovery without leave of court. All of this has been done to the extreme detriment of objecting defendants.”