Title: Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.

Citation: 601 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1979)

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Date of Decision: March 16, 1979

Facts: In a professional football match between the Denver Broncos and the Cincinnati Bengals,
Dale Hackbart, a player for the Broncos, suffered an injury inflicted by Charles Clark, a player
representing the Bengals. Clark's action, a forceful blow to Hackbart's head using his forearm,
took place post an interception play and was deemed beyond the necessities of the game.

Procedural History: Following the incident, Hackbart brought legal action against both Clark
and the Cincinnati Bengals in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado,
alleging assault and battery. The District Court, however, dismissed the case, asserting that since
the occurrence transpired within the football game's realm, it fell outside the purview of legal
action. Dissatisfied with this decision, Hackbart appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.

Issues:

1. Does an intentional, unlawful act performed during a football game, but outside the
boundaries of regular gameplay, constitute actionable assault and battery?

2. Could the team or organization employing a player be held vicariously liable for the
intentional, unlawful actions of their player during a sporting event, particularly when such
actions occur outside the scope of normal gameplay?

Decision: The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit overturned the District
Court's ruling. It determined that while participants in a contact sport like football acknowledge
certain inherent risks, intentional acts carried out beyond the scope of normal gameplay, such as
Clark's blow to Hackbart, could lead to a legitimate claim for assault and battery. The Court
concluded that Hackbart had not consented to nor anticipated the risk of such an intentional,
unlawful act.

Answers: The Court reasoned that while participants in contact sports consent to a certain degree
of physical contact and inherent injury risk, they do not consent to intentional, illegal actions
occurring outside the bounds of regular gameplay. It distinguished between acts inherent to the
sport's risks and those falling outside accepted conduct, such as Clark's blow post-play. The
Court held that such acts could indeed warrant a claim for assault and battery, even within a
contact sport's context.

Disposition: The District Court's decision was reversed, and the case was remanded for further
proceedings consistent with the Tenth Circuit's opinion.