@gnr4life said in [Royce Simmons](/post/1526214) said:
I’m not a lawyer, but if the NRL are taking precautions now that they weren’t taking 30-40 years ago, that right there could be grounds to sue. You can’t really argue that the affects of concussions weren’t known back as far back as the 90’s because the evidence was out there
No, it's more about duty of care with sufficient knowledge. Corporations get done when it can be proven they've known about risks or, worse, hidden / suppressed risks, e.g. tobacco companies with cigarettes.
For the NRL to be taking action now, that's really based on a new weight of evidence and study in recent decades, which is affecting many contact codes at once - league, rugby, NFL, soccer. For example CT and MRI scans have only become commonplace since the 1980s and the resolving power was much more primitive back then.
It's kind of like climate change: scientists have known or at least suspected for a long time that people were significantly affecting the environment, but suspicion is a different thing to having empirical evidence, which has really emerged over the last 20 years - temperature records, weather records etc. And once you know or suspect where you are looking, sometimes it can become far more concrete / achieve consensus.
It would have to be proven that the NRL or ARL knew for sure that there were above-average risks and did not act accordingly. I also don't even know if the NRL can be challenged for actions that may have occurred under the ARL or NSWRL - they may be legally entirely different entities. The clubs might be at more risk, but again you'd have to prove they had concrete knowledge of risk factors without taking action - and I am going to suspect that would be very difficult to prove.