When Does a Workplace Injury Become a Legal Claim?
The recent inquest into the death of former footballer Gordon McQueen concluded that repetitive head impacts from heading the ball contributed to his brain disease.
While the headlines focus on the nostalgia of the "golden era" of sport, the legal reality underneath is far more clinical.
This verdict moves the conversation away from a tragic medical occurrence and toward a foundational question of Duty of Care: at what point does a known occupational hazard stop being a "risk of the job" and start being a failure of an employer or governing body to protect its people?
In law, this isn't just about football; it is about the threshold of "foreseeability" and the responsibility organizations have to mitigate risks, even when those risks are inherent to the activity itself.
Duty, Breach, and Causation
To understand why these cases are legally complex, we have to look at the three pillars of a negligence or personal injury claim.
For any individual, whether a professional athlete, a construction worker, or an office employee—the law first asks if a Duty of Care existed. Usually, the answer is yes, as employers and sports governing bodies have a legal obligation to ensure the safety of their participants.
The second hurdle is proving a Breach of Duty. This is where it gets difficult, as a breach occurs only if the organization failed to act on information it knew (or should have known).
The legal dispute often centers on exactly when the science became clear enough that the authorities should have changed the rules or provided warnings. Finally, there is Causation.
The McQueen inquest reached a "narrative verdict," meaning the coroner described the circumstances rather than just a cause of death.
By linking repetitive impacts to Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), the court provided a "causational link," which is often the highest hurdle in a civil lawsuit.
The Role of the Inquest vs. The Civil Court
It is important to distinguish between the Inquest and a Civil Claim for damages. An inquest is an "inquisitorial" process designed to find facts: who died, when, where, and how.
A Narrative Verdict is a powerful tool here; instead of a one-word cause of death, the Coroner writes a description of the contributing factors.
While an inquest cannot legally "blame" someone or award money, its findings are often used as the bedrock for a Civil Judgment. In a civil court, the process is "adversarial."
A judge decides on the "balance of probabilities" if an employer was negligent and orders financial compensation. Essentially, the inquest provides the evidence, and the civil court provides the remedy.
The "Date of Knowledge" Rule: Why the Clock Doesn't Always Start at Work
For most personal injury claims, there is a strict three-year time limit to bring a case.
However, for "creeping" diseases like CTE, asbestos-related illness, or Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI), the law applies the Date of Knowledge rule.
This means the three-year clock does not start on the day you were exposed to the hazard. Instead, it starts when a "reasonable person" would have known their injury was significant, that it was attributable to their work, and exactly who was responsible for that work environment.
This rule is a vital legal tool.
It ensures that if a condition takes twenty years to manifest, your right to seek a remedy is preserved from the moment you receive a diagnosis or realize the link to your former career.
The Legal Consequences
When an inquest links a job to long-term illness, the legal consequences tend to unfold quietly rather than all at once.
Findings like these often become the foundation for coordinated claims by former workers who argue that risks were not addressed as medical understanding developed.
They can also harden guidance into enforceable rules, particularly where safety measures already exist but are inconsistently applied.
For individuals, the broader point is simple. Workplace injury law is not limited to sudden accidents.
Harm caused by years of repetitive exposure can still give rise to legal claims, especially where warnings were absent or risks were downplayed. Time limits do not always run from the day the work ended.
In cases of slowly emerging illness, the clock may start only when the connection becomes clear. That is why written records, early concerns, and medical confirmation matter, not as formalities, but as the difference between a closed door and a viable claim.
