http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/02/1023864732816.html
Following his sudden retirement due to ankle injuries, it appears Jason Snell is going to seek to be compensated in insurance money for what happened on the playing field.
The article in The Age says that as Snell may seek up to $250,000 in damages, it would serve as a test case for other footballers whose careers have ended prematurely due to injury-- but the way I see it, he may have a good argument as it applies to his case.
He admitted that he can no longer run, and that certainly does him no good as a footballer, and justifies reasons for his retirement. But if anyone who saw him on the news yesterday, he definitely had trouble walking normally, and even looks bowlegged doing it.
If the six surgeries have been unable to fix his ankle or his leg, then he has a just reason to pursue a course of action through the courts, IMO.
Any other thoughts or opinions?
Cheers,
William
Following his sudden retirement due to ankle injuries, it appears Jason Snell is going to seek to be compensated in insurance money for what happened on the playing field.
The article in The Age says that as Snell may seek up to $250,000 in damages, it would serve as a test case for other footballers whose careers have ended prematurely due to injury-- but the way I see it, he may have a good argument as it applies to his case.
He admitted that he can no longer run, and that certainly does him no good as a footballer, and justifies reasons for his retirement. But if anyone who saw him on the news yesterday, he definitely had trouble walking normally, and even looks bowlegged doing it.
If the six surgeries have been unable to fix his ankle or his leg, then he has a just reason to pursue a course of action through the courts, IMO.
Any other thoughts or opinions?
Cheers,
William