TOPIC: CIVIL LIABILTIES IN SPORTS INJURIES –

CASE LAWS

BY:
CONTENTS:
1. INTRODCUCTION
2. UNINTENTIONAL TORT
a) NEGLIGNCE
b) VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA
3. INTENTIONAL TORT
a) CIVIL ASSAULT
b) RECKLESSNESS
4. CASES OF INTEREST
5. CONCLUSION
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
• INTRODUCTION:
• “Games might be and are the serious business of life to many people. It would be
extraordinary to say that people could not recover from injuries sustained in the
business of life, whether that was football, or motor racing, or any other of those
pursuits which are instinctively classed as games but which everyone knew quite
well to be serious business transactions for the persons engaged therein.”

• (Cleghorn v Oldham (1927))

• CIVIL LIABILTIES IN SPORTS INJURIES

• Civil liability gives a person rights to obtain redressal another from the person , i.e
the ability to sue for damages for personal injury. For an award of damages , the
injured party has to suffer an actual loss.

• The scope of civil liability is much wider than criminal liability as civil law does
not require mens rea i.e, an intension to cause harm.

• Civil liability is founded in the Law of torts, whereby due to negligent act and/or on
failing to take reasonable care, the aggrieved person is entitled to compensation.
• It is universally accepted that duty of care exists between participants in sports . A
reference to participants apart from the players includes referees, coaches
organizers, manufactures or anyone else who may be involved in a particular sports

• it assumed that the liability arises when an individual’s wrongful and culpable
conduct harms another individual.

• In determining culpability or fault one must distinguish between intension and

negligence

• Intension arises when it is clear that the participant/s will is directed at causing
injuries the participant foresees the result cause and is conscious of the
unlawfulness of the conduct
• If a sportsperson can show that another participant intentionally inflicted injury a
such conduct may amount to criminal offence
• The injured party might also be to seek compensation for the Injury and
consequential loses for the assault in the civil law Where the injury is not
intentional, the injured party has to show that the other participant was negligent.
• Recklessness is the appropriate minimum standard of liabilty in the context of
sports injury litigation. In the other words to be reckless conduct must be more
than negligent
• Negligence has been described as conduct that falls below the standard regarded as
normal or desirable
• For this reason the primary focus on the tort negligence is given
UNINTENTIONAL TORT:

NEGLIGENCE
Negligence refers to the failure to exercise the standard of care as a reasonable man
should by law, have exercised in the circumstances. The court must look that there was
a “duty of care” relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and such the
defendant did not take standard care while performing the act and this resulted in
injuries to the plaintiff. The standard of care means what a reasonable competitor
would do in place of the defendant, which full in the spirit of game and without
vengeance
• Many different theories of negligence have arisen over
the years in litigation concerning injuries sustained
during contact sports. These theories are limited only by
the innovative thought processes of skilled attorneys.
Nonetheless, final judgment is always decided by our
judiciary, which is charged with ensuring compliance
with the law. Although the system is not perfect, our civil
justice system allows theories regulated by rules of
procedure and evidence to be subjected to a judgment by
our peers with constant judicial oversight. An additional
safeguard is provided through appellate review.
The following negligence claims frequently appear in sports-related injury cases:

• Failure to properly train

• Failure to be properly credentialed
• Inadequate supervision
• Failure to properly observe, refer, or stabilize the injured player
• Unequal matching of opponents (boxing)

• Improper return to play

• Failure to have an emergency medical plan

• Improper medical clearance

• Improper equipment or fitting
• Improper screening or physicals
• Failure to warn of risks

• Failure to enact proper rules for concussions or return to play

• Failure to stop or curtail risky or violent conduct
• Medical malpractice

• Negligent hiring or retention of personnel

• Improper design or maintenance of playing field or premises
• The essence of a negligent action is the conduct that the
results in the reasonable risk, of harm to another

• In the case Poonam Verma v Ashwin Patel and ors ,

Supreme Court held that:
“negligence has many manifestations – it may be active
negligence, collateral negligence comparative negligence,
concurrent negligence, continued negligence, active and
passive..”
Professor Linden has noted that cause of the action for
negligence arises if the following elements are present;
1. The claimant must suffer some damage
2. The damage suffered must be caused by the defendant

3. The defendants conduct may be negligent, that us in

breach of the standard of care set by the law
4. the conduct if the defendant must be a proximate cause
of the loss or stated another way, damage should not be
too remote a result of the defendants conduct
Volenti Non Fit Injuria
• The courts refer to the common law doctrine of volenti
as the assumption of risk doctrine. The doctrine involves
the defendant establishing that the plaintiff knew of the
risk of injury arising from participating and voluntarily
assumed it by agreeing to participate. The doctrine is,
‘based on knowledge, comprehension and appreciation
of the risk. This consent, according to Lord Denning, can
be implied or express. Where a defendant can establish
this they are absolved from liability. However, there can
be no successful defence where the plaintiff was under
any compulsion to participate.
Intentional Tort: Civil Assault
• Just as the crown may charge a person with
criminal assault, an injured person may bring an
action against another person for civil assault.
Civil assault like criminal assault consists of use
of force or threat of use of force against another
person. A kick, a punch swung at another person
may result into assault. It dosen’t matter that the
individual did not mean to cause the exact
damages that ensued, or even that the intended
target was actually another person- it is the intent
to use force or final contact that matter.
Recklessness
•
Somewhere in between the unintentional act of negligence and
intentional act of assault lies the notion of reckless behaviour. A person
is reckless where he or she knew, or ought to have known, that the
conduct would likely cause serious injury to another, but the person
was nonetheless indifferent to that risk and carried out that conduct
anyway. The difference between the reckless conduct and negligence is
the degree of forseeability of harm, while recklessness differs from an
intentional wrong doing such as assault by way of issue of intent.

In conclusion, violent activity as perceived from a civil perspective

occurs along a continuum. At one end is the tort of negligence, where
there was no intention to cause harm and on the other end is civil
assault in which there exists the intention to cause harm. Recklessness
lies somewhere between the two
CASES OF INTEREST
It is impossible to predict all of the factual scenarios people will
encounter that could subject them to potential liability arising
from a sport-related contact or neurological injury. Examining
prior legal cases and their results, however, can provide guidance
as to what is and is not acceptable conduct when one is
confronted with a sport-related injury. The doctrine of stare
decisis requires courts of law “to follow earlier judicial decisions
when the same points arise again in litigation.”

Courts of law adhere to stare decisis because it provides

continuity and predictability in our legal system and further
provides notice to society as to what one’s rights, duties, and
obligations are.
Negligence
1. CALDWELL V MAGUIRE

• The claimant and defendants were all professional jockeys.

During a race the defendants’ riding caused the serious injury
of the claimant. The claimant raised an action for damages.

The claimant’s case was dismissed. It was held that horse

racing is a competitive sport and that the risk of injury is high.
Therefore, it was not possible to consider the defendant’s
momentary lapse of judgment as negligence because the
opportunity for injury was abundant and the choices available
to jockeys to avoid or reduce risk were limited. In such
circumstances, it was not possible to characterize momentary
carelessness as negligence.
2. MALDONADO V. GATEWAY HOTEL HOLDINGS, L.L.C.

A 23-year-old professional boxer, Fernando Maldonado, was knocked out in a fight

at the Gateway Hotel in St. Louis in 1999. After being revived, Maldonado walked

to his dressing room, where he lost consciousness. There was no ambulance on-site

or on standby, nor was medical monitoring provided. Maldonado alleged that the

hotel, as the landowner, failed to have an ambulance and medical monitoring on-

site, which delayed his treatment, thereby causing significant brain injury and

numerous motor and cognitive deficits. The jury found the hotel negligent and

awarded $13.7 million in compensatory damages. Although a request for punitive

damages was not made, the jury, on its own, assessed punitive damages in the

amount of $27.4 million to the verdict, which was later struck by the judge.
•
3) PINSON V. STATE OF TENNESSEE
• In 1984, Michael Pinson received a blow to his head in a football practice. Shortly

afterward, he collapsed and remained unconscious for 10 minutes. The school’s

athletic trainer examined Pinson and found facial palsy; no control on the left side

of the body; unequal pupils; and no response to pain, sound, or movement. Pinson

was thereafter immediately rushed to the hospital. The team trainer did not

accompany Pinson to the hospital and instead sent a student trainer. Hospital

records revealed that the student trainer informed hospital personnel that Pinson

had been unconscious for 2 minutes. The school’s trainer later appeared at the

hospital but never conveyed to hospital personnel the significant neurological

findings he had made on the field. Pinson’s subsequent symptoms of headache,

known by the trainer, together with the trainer’s original findings, were never

relayed to Pinson’s treating doctor, who ultimately allowed Pinson to return to play.
• Three weeks after the concussion, Pinson was “kicked in the head”

and collapsed unconscious at practice. Surgery revealed a chronic

subdural hematoma that had been present likely for 3 to 4 weeks.

Pinson remained in a coma for several weeks following his brain

surgery and became hemiparetic.

• At a commissioner’s trial, the school’s trainer was found negligent

for failing to communicate Pinson’s neurological signs and

symptoms to the emergency room and treating physician.

Damages of $300,000 were assessed against the school trainer and

the school.
4) CERNY V. CEDAR BLUFFS JUNIOR/SENIOR PUBLIC
SCHOOL

•In September 1995, Brent Cerny struck his head against the ground while attempting to make a tackle in a

football game. Reports indicated that Cerny was dizzy and disoriented but remained in the game for a couple

of plays before taking himself out. Cerny returned to the game in the third quarter and played to its conclusion.

He participated in practice the following week and was injured again when his helmet struck another player

during practice drills. Cerny’s doctor testified that he suffered a closed head injury with second concussion

syndrome.

•In his lawsuit, Cerny advanced several theories of negligence against his coach, including failing to adequately

examine, failing to obtain qualified medical attention, and improperly allowing him to return to play. Critical

testimony during the trial was conflicting. The judge found that the coach’s conduct in evaluating Cerny and

permitting him to reenter the game and participate in subsequent practices was consistent with what a

reasonable coach would do under like or similar circumstances. The judge’s verdict found that the coach was

not negligent.
5) REGAN V. STATE OF NEW YORK

In Regan v. State of New York, a young college rugby player suffered a broken
neck while practicing as a member of the rugby club and was rendered
quadriplegic. The player filed a lawsuit against the state university alleging inter
alia, negligent supervision of the practice. The court dismissed the claim, finding
that the player had assumed the risk of “those injury-causing events which are
known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable consequences of their own
participation.”
 Volenti Non Fit Injuria:
6) HALLS v. BROOLANDS AUTO RACING
CLUB

The plaintiff was a spectator at a motor care race being held at

Brooklands on a track owned by the defendant’s company.
During the race, there was a collision between two cars, one of
which was thrown among the spectators, thereby injuring the
plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff impliedly took the risk of
such injury, the danger being inherent in the sport which any
spectator could forsee, hence the defendant was not held liable
Intentional Tort: Civil Assault Case:

7. NABONZY V BARNHILL
• The Plaintiff, a soccer goalie, was kicked in the face by
another player during an amateur soccer match. The Nabozny
case was the first Appellate Court case in Illinois to recognize
the contact sport exception to the general rule that a person is
responsible for his negligent acts or omissions. The court
stated that to allow the plaintiff goalie to sue another player in
negligence under these facts would obviously have a chilling
effect on other players who choose to play soccer, basketball,
hockey, football, softball, etc. The court held that a player
could still be liable in tort if his conduct was either deliberate,
willful, or with a reckless disregard for the safety of others
Recklessness :
8. WOOLDRIDGE V SUMNER

It is an English Court of Appeal judgment dealing with the liability in

negligence of participants in sporting competitions towards spectators. The
Court of Appeal held in this case that sportsmen would only be liable to
spectators if they showed "reckless disregard" for their safety. The plaintiff, Mr
Wooldridge, who was a photographer at a horse race, was injured by the horse
belonging to the defendant, Sumner, which was ridden in a competition by
Sumner's, who was a skilled and experienced horseman. The Court of Appeal
held that Sumner owed no duty of care to Wooldridge in this case. As a
spectator, Wooldridge accepted the risks involved in a horserace he came to
watch. As a reasonable participant in the race, which is a fast and competitive
sport, the horseman was expected to concentrate on the race and not on the
spectator. In the course of a fast moving competition such as this one, he could
be expected to make errors of judgment. As long as the damage was not caused
recklessly or deliberately, the participant in a race could not be held liable for
the spectators injuries because he was not negligent, i.e. not in breach of his
duty
 CONCLUSION
As demonstrated by the previously discussed cases, the application of the law

is not a mechanical approach. The outcome of each case is dependent on its

own unique facts. As such, there is no brightline rule or specific course of

conduct that the law prescribes to avoid liability completely. As in all

negligence claims, in a claim against a medical provider or responsible

person involving a sport-related injury, the defendant will be evaluated under

the “reasonable person” standard. Thus, in order to avoid liability, she must

act as a reasonable medical provider, trainer, coach, or other professional

would under the same or similar circumstances.