CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ON-FIELD

INJURIES: A CASE STUDY

APPROACH
KIRAN KHANNA A P
BC0190023
 OVERVIEW
❖ CONTACT SPORTS
• ICE HOCKEY
• RUGBY
• FOOTBALL

❖ NON-CONTACT SPORTS
❖ EXTREME SPORTS
❖ VICARIOUS LIABILITY
 Mel Unruh Vs Steve Webber (1994)
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
• The incident took place in an exhibition minor league
hockey game and the league consisted of 17 to 19 year
olds.
• The puck went into the corner and the plaintiff went
after it, with the defendant right behind him.
• When the plaintiff was 6-8 feet away from the boards,
the defendant hit him from behind. The plaintiff went
head first into the boards and broke his neck.
Some of the findings of the study were as follows:
❖ 87% of the injuries were to the neck.
❖ 65% of the known cases suffered damage to the spinal cord.
❖ 95% of injuries happened in organized games.
❖ 80.9% of the injured players struck the boards.
❖ 34% of the known injuries occurred when players were
❖ pushed or checked from behind 6.5% of the known injured players died.
 CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE DEFENDANT
1. You are aware though that if you push somebody from behind head first into the boards there is a real
risk of injury?→ YES

2. And you were aware that the injury that could be caused could be a very serious injury?→YES

3. So you knew that special care had to be taken when you are approaching somebody from behind when
they're close to the boards?→YES

4. And you would also know, Mr. Webber, that if you had a choice between allowing an opposing player to
get away with the puck or the choice of stopping him by using a careless check from behind which might
cause him to go head first into the boards, you should let him get away? →I would use a different way of
trying to stop him, yes.

The Defendants also admit that checks from behind are contrary to the CAHA Official
Hockey Rules.
 JUDGEMENT

COURT REJECTED THE DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT: The game of ice hockey is a vigorous and
physical game which involves a great deal of bodily contact between players. A risk of bodily injury is inherent
in the game. The Defendants say that the Plaintiff agreed to engage in the sport of hockey knowing that it is a
contact sport played at high speed entailing a risk of injury. The Plaintiff accepted the risk of physical injury
arising from the kind of bodily contact which can be expected in the sport, whether within the rules or as a
result of unintentional rule infractions. These Defendants plead and rely on the doctrine of volenti non fit
injuria.
 REASONABLE STANDARD 0F CARE DOCTRINE

• “The element of risk, to the extent it is normally accepted as part and parcel of the game by
reasonable competitors, acting as reasonable men of the sporting world, is one of the
circumstances that may be considered under the "standard of care" issue.

• The standard of care test is — what would a reasonable competitor, in his place, do or not do.
The words "in his place" imply the need to consider the speed, the amount of body contact and
the stresses in the sport, as well as the risks the players might reasonably be expected to take
during the game, acting within the spirit of the game and according to standards of fair play. A
breach of the rules may be one element in that issue but not necessarily definitive of the issue.”
 QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGES

❖ Assess general non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering, loss of

amenities and loss of enjoyment of life;
❖ Estimate the income that the plaintiff would probably have received had he
lived out his predicted pre-accident lifetime;
❖ Predict the post-accident life expectancy of the plaintiff;
❖ Estimate the present value of the probable cost of future care of the plaintiff.
 Gaudet Vs Sullivan (1992)
FACTS: The plaintiff was involved in an altercation with the goaltender from the
defendant’s team. The defendant came to the aid of the goaltender. He skated in and hit
the plaintiff in the chest. The impact caused the plaintiff to fall to the ice and hit his face
on the ice.

COURT TOOK THE PLAYING CULTURE OF THE SPORT INTO CONSIDERATION & DISMISSED THE
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM
• The game in question was quite rough and the defendant has not deliberately violated the rules of the game with the
intent to injure the plaintiff
• The plaintiff ’s evidence was that the defendant was playing defence and that part of the role of a defenceman is to
protect the goaltender.
 Hattingh v Roux (2011)

FACTUAL BACKHROUND

Plaintiff, a former school rugby player was severely injured by defendant during a
scrum. It was alleged inter alia that Plaintiff’s injury was caused by the breach of
duty to care, alternatively negligence of the Defendant who transgressed the official
laws of the game of rugby, in accordance with an illegal and highly dangerous
manoeuvre, apparently coded “jack-knife”, forcibly placed his head in the incorrect
channel of the scrum, as a result of which Defendant’s head impacted directly and
with force onto Plaintiff’s neck, thereby causing the fracture to his neck
 JUDGEMENT
❖ “For the purposes of liability for injury in sport, unlawfulness and fault are determined with reference
to the RULES and PLAYING CULTURE of the sport concerned and to the particular circumstances
in which the injury occurred.
❖ It should, however, be noted that injuries resulting from actions which are, strictly speaking,
forbidden by the rules of the game, may also be lawful where such actions occur normally in the
course of the game, or put differently, if the injuries result from actions which have been known
reasonably to occur in a rugby game, they are to be regarded as lawful.

HELD:
❖ This conduct of defendant was not only forbidden by the laws of the game, but constituted such a serious
transgression, not normally associated with the game of rugby, that it would not reasonably have been
expected to occur in a rugby game.
❖ Having regard to the extremely dangerous nature of the manoeuvre executed by the defendant, it would not
have constituted conduct which rugby players would accept as part and parcel of the normal risks inherent to
their participation in a game of rugby.
 CANDON V BASI (1985)
The plaintiff in this case sustained a broken leg when tackled by
the defendant during a game of football in an English local
league. He brought an action in negligence claiming damages.
The plaintiff sustained his injury well into the second half of the
game when the defendant executed a late sliding tackle.

Supreme Court of UK held:

❖ By engaging in a sport or pastime the participants may be held to have accepted risks which are inherent in
that sport or pastime: but this does not eliminate all duty of care of the one participant to the other.
❖ He was clearly guilty, as the Court find the facts, of serious and dangerous foul play which showed a reckless
disregard of the Plaintiff ’s safety and which fell far below the standards which might reasonably be expected
in anyone pursuing the game.
 CIVIL LIABILITY IN NON-CONTACT SPORTS
SHIN V. ARN (SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 2007):
Mr. Ahn and Mr. Shin were grouped together for a round of golf at Rancho Park Golf Course in
Los Angeles. The shot hit by Ahn, struck Shin in the head. Shin filed suit for negligence, and Ahn
claimed that Shin’s negligence claim was barred by the assumption of risk doctrine.

The Court elaborated on the developing paradigm, applying it to golf and by implication to other
non-contact sports - and reaffirming that liability attaches only to those defendants whose
actions are "so reckless as to be totally outside the range" of normal participation in the
sports.
HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT
 CIVIL LIABILITY IN EXTREME SPORTS
Extreme sport is classified as being physically hazardous,
featuring a combination of speed, height, danger,
spectacular stunts, and varying weather conditions.
Extreme Sports, by their nature, are inherently
dangerous. The risk of injury is extremely high.

Dare v. Freefall Adventures, Inc. (2002)

❖ Joseph Dare was injured in a sky diving accident when he attempted to avoid colliding with a co-participant in the
jump. Prior to jumping, Dare released Freefall Adventures from any claims of injuries arising from Freefall's
negligence by signing a waiver contract.
❖ In the context of skiing, a release from liability for injuries arising from the activity may be void as public policy
because of its adhesive nature, and, furthermore, because the release cannot relieve the owner of the ski resort
from its statutory duty of care.
❖ The court in this case ruled that the operator did not breach its duty of care in how the facility was run, nor did the
operator materially increase the risk of injury to the skydiver beyond those reasonably anticipated by skydiving
participants. The operator, therefore, was not liable.
 VICARIOUS LIABILITY

McCord v Cornforth and Swansea City Football Club (1997)

❖ Court found an employing club vicariously liable for the acts of an employee player and awarded damages to a
professional footballer whose playing career had been ended by the negligent challenge of an opponent

❖ Laid down close connection test: for a tort to be within the scope of employment, there must be a sufficiently close
connection between the tort and employment such that it is fair and just to impose vicarious liability on the employer

EXCESSIVE VIOLENCE WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE AS LONG AS THE PRESSURES AND INCENTIVES
TO BE VIOLENT PERSIST
 TO SUM UP…
Factors involved in the determination of Civil
Liability:
❖ Nature of the game (Rules & Playing Culture)
❖ Nature of the act committed
❖ The degree of force employed
❖ The degree of risk of injury
❖ The state of mind of the accused.