It’s called risk compensation, or risk homeostasis.
The theory follows that when people have more or better protective equipment, such as football helmets, they take more chances.
The idea was popularized by Dr. Erik Swartz, a kinesiology professor at the University of New Hampshire. But it is not new. Swartz, a big proponent of helmetless football practices, told The Sporting News earlier this year that “when a player has a body part that’s protected, and the contact with somebody else is imminent, you’re going to put your protected body part first, just reflexively.”
Will the theory become a factor in the recent lawsuits filed last month by NFL Hall of Famer Paul Hornung and a group other players against Riddell? Will the theory be interwoven with the Assumption of Risk doctrine? Or will the lawsuit turn on the defendant’s failure to warn? Time will tell.
Corboy & Demetrio and the Brad Sohn Law Firm in Florida are representing Hornung, alleging that their client suffered numerous concussions during his professional career and has been diagnosed with dementia.
“Players like Paul Hornung played with a false sense of security,” said Thomas A. Demetrio, founder of Corboy & Demetrio. “Their helmets did nothing to prevent the types of brain injuries that lead to long-term brain damage. But, Riddell never warned these guys about the real risk of permanent cognitive and mental health issues.
Hornung won the Heisman Trophy in 1956, while playing in a leather helmet for the University of Notre Dame. In the NFL, he played running back for the Green Bay Packers from 1957 to 1966, leading the league in scoring for three straight seasons and winning four NFL titles and the first Super Bowl.
“Studies dating back to the 19th century linked head trauma to permanent brain damage, but Riddell failed to communicate the danger to Mr. Hornung,” said William T. Gibbs of Corboy & Demetrio, who is also representing Hornung and his wife Angela. “As Calvin Johnson told ESPN today, concussions happen in the NFL as frequently as every third play. Clearly, the helmets that Riddell provides do little to protect NFL players from this risk,” Gibbs added.
Proving Hornung’s claim could be problematic, since there was less known about traumatic brain injury when he played. Another lawsuit, filed two weeks later, presents the claims of players, who played more recently, creating a different dynamic.
But either way, one of the questions that could emerge in the litigation is how much did the helmets enhance the risk thru risk homeostasis?
Jon Heshka, a sports law professor at Thompson Rivers University and frequent contributor to Concussion Litigation Reporter, wrote a column for the Ottawa Citizen Special February 9, 2010 in which he looked at the theory in context with studies that showed that skiers engaged in riskier behavior when wearing helmets.
“This theory was conceived by Dr. Gerald Wilde of Queen’s University, and it basically notes that people and systems unconsciously calibrate and accept a certain level of risk in order to maximize the overall expected benefit from an activity. For example, football helmets were invented to protect against skull and facial fractures which, at the time, were pervasive in the game. Those injuries have now been replaced by concussions.
“While football helmets reduced the likelihood of lethal skull fractures, they also created a sense of invulnerability that encouraged players to collide more forcefully, more often and with hits directly to the head. It is also interesting to note that Australian football players, who do not wear the body armour and helmets worn by their American brethren, are 25 per cent less likely to sustain a head injury — although their incident rates for shoulder and knee injuries are higher. This suggests that players compensate for the lack of personal protective equipment by not being as aggressive and taking fewer risks.
“Thus, a control measure designed to mitigate the risk in one area (such as helmets) is compensated by behaviour such as skiing faster, hucking bigger air, skiing in the trees or taking otherwise ill-advised chances which elevate the risk to its pre-existing level. It is admittedly difficult to say whether the skiers increased their risk-taking behaviour because they were wearing a helmet or they wore a helmet because they planned on taking greater risks.”
