601 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1979)
Summary of the Key Facts: During the 1970s Dale Hackbart played for the Denver Broncos football club as a defensive back. At the same time, Charles Clark played for the Cincinnati Bengals football club as a running back. In a December 1973 game between the Broncos and the Bengals, out of frustration for a turnover by his team, Clark deliberately struck Hackbart on the head and neck away from play in manner that was later deemed a personal foul and dangerous (Hackbart). However, as no official saw the act, Clark and the Bengals were not penalized. While Hackbart was knocked to the ground by the hit, he did not immediately feel any excessive pain. However, the next day pain from the hit developed to the point where it affected is movement. He nevertheless did not seek treatment until several weeks and two games later. Upon getting treatment, it was then that Hackbart discovered that Clark’s hit had fractured several bones in his neck. Hackbart eventually brought a cause of action in tort against Clark and the Bengals claiming that Clark’s hit was an intentional battery. At trial, the court dismissed the case and held that Clark and the Bengals were not liable for Hackbart’s neck injuries because the game of football is an extremely violent sport and any person plays the game assume the risk that their participation might lead to their injury, even injuries as in the Hackbart’s case that were deliberate, against the rules and cause injury. Hackbart’s appealed the trial court’s decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming the trial court had erred in rendering a decision in favor of Clark and the Bengals.
Issue(s): Was the trial court correct in finding that football is an extremely violent sport, that all players understand is violent and therefore assume the risk of injury to such an extent that makes the application of tort law to football game activities useless.
Holding: Yes, the trial court did err in finding that football is so dangerous as to make in application the application of tort law (Hackbart). Accordingly, the trial court should not have dismissed and Hackbart should be given the opportunity to prove that Clark and the Bengals are liable in intentional tort for his neck injuries.
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning: Although the trial court was correct in finding that professional football is a violent and at times a clearly dangerous sport, it nevertheless failed to take into consideration that football has rules regulating what is and is not proper conduct, behavior and actions for its players. As a result, the simple fact that a person choses to participate in playing professional football and understands the risks of injury, that does not mean that he must accept all actions or conduct, no matter how unreasonable, that occurs during a game are as simply “part of the game”. In other words, since professional football itself has rules prohibiting certain conduct in order to ensure player safety, so should a court consider legitimate causes of action in tort despite the fact that football is inherently violent.
Works Cited
Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, 601 F.2d 516. United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 1979. Web. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/601/516/377615
