Competitive Sports Torts
| Publication year | 1990 |
| Pages | 2457 |
| Citation | Vol. 19 No. 12 Pg. 2457 |
1990, December, Pg. 2457. Competitive Sports Torts
The frequency and fervor with which Americans engage in competitive sports(fn1) have spurred concerns regarding the extent to which injuries are an inherent risk and an integral part of the games they play or watch.(fn2) Through the prism of tort law, some injuries may be seen as not properly belonging to the sports tradition.(fn3)
Even in professional football, some conduct may be tortious. Compensation may be available to a person injured by such conduct, as established by the seminal case of Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals.(fn4) Indeed, tort claims for personal injuries and consequential damages arising from competitive sports activities have been made with enough frequency to segregate them for the purpose of focusing discussion and to give them a label---"competitive sports torts."(fn5) This article examines the revolutionary Hack bart case, discusses the basic principles of competitive sports torts and looks at important issues to be considered when such claims are brought.
The watershed case in competitive sports torts law began on the playing field of Mile High Stadium during a September 16, 1973, professional football game between the Denver Broncos and the Cincinnati Bengals.(fn6) Following an interception by Denver free safety Billy Thompson of a pass intended for Cincinnati offensive back Charles "Booby" Clark, Denver linebacker Dale Hackbart attempted to block Clark while Thompson ran the interception from the end zone back to midfield. After the attempted block, Hackbart remained on the ground, turned and, with one knee on the ground, watched the rest of the play. Clark stepped forward and struck a blow with his right forearm to the back of the kneeling Hackbart's head and neck with such force that both players fell to the ground. Although no official saw the incident, a game film showed clearly what occurred. After two weeks, the pain caused Hackbart to seek medical help. He then learned that he had a serious neck fracture.(fn7)
Alleging reckless misconduct, Hackbart eventually brought suit against Clark and the Cincinnati Bengals. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that if Clark was guilty of anything, he was guilty of assault and battery, which was statutorily time barred. However, the Tenth Circuit held that recklessness under § 500 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts was a lesser included act within the scope of assault and battery. The Tenth Circuit reversed the trial court and remanded the case for trial, after which the parties quickly settled.(fn8)
The significance of Hackbart is that, for the first time, a federal appellate court ruled that conduct arising from competitive sports is bound by the standards of traditional tort law, irrespective of how much violence is inherent in the contest. Hackbart established that no one implicitly consents to injuries caused by breaches of the law merely by participating in a competitive sport. The Tenth Circuit's opinion was in marked contrast to that of the trial court. The trial court commented that professional football is a noisy, emotional, violent business---a species of warfare in which the participants accept injuries as commonplace. Therefore, the trial court said, it is unreasonable to conclude that one player has a duty of care for the safety of others.(fn9) Conversely, the Tenth Circuit remarked that
Unless barred or modified by statute (such as worker's compensation) or contract (by virtue of carefully crafted liability waivers), ordinary negligence...
To continue reading
Request your trial