Negligence as a Basis for Liability in Sports
Posted By Glenn Johnston
9-12-2005
Injuries frequently occur to participants in certain "contact sports," such as football or hockey. The law in general allows an injured individual to recover damages caused by the actions of another, providing certain conditions are met. However, most jurisdictions recognize an exception for injuries that occur during sports activities. Actions that would usually constitute assault and battery do not necessarily subject a competitor who injures another in a game to liability for the resulting damages. Courts have articulated a number of reasons for this exception. One reason is that sports participants are usually aware of the dangers and possibility of injury in a game; another rationale is a public policy of encouraging sports competition.
Negligence Standards Applied to Sports Injuries
Courts in some states apply a "negligence" standard to injuries during sporting events. To assess liability, the injured party must show that:
- There was a duty of care owed to the injured party (a general duty to avoid harm to others exists).
- The injuring party breached that duty through carelessness, etc., but not intentionally.
- The injured party actually suffered harm.
- The harm suffered was a direct result of the actions that constituted the breach of duty.
The majority of states have adopted a more stringent standard for establishing liability. This is due to the reasons stated above, plus a fear that allowing recovery for injuries during sports competitions based solely on a showing of negligence would flood the courts with law suits; every injury, minor or serious, could potentially become the basis for a lawsuit.
Requirement of Intent to Harm or Reckless Conduct in Many Jurisdictions
In most jurisdictions, a player is not liable for injury to another player during a game unless there is a finding of intent to injure or a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Some states, such as Wisconsin, have adopted laws that limit liability for injuries during amateur athletics to cases where there is reckless conduct or the intent to injure.
Courts in some jurisdictions have modified this standard, however, depending on the sport involved and the anticipated risks of participating in that sport. In a 2000 New Jersey case, a golfer was struck in the face by another golfer's unanticipated shot, made without warning (it was a "Mulligan;" a second tee shot, sometimes allowed when a golfer is dissatisfied with the first tee shot). The court reasoned that golf is not considered a contact sport; therefore the standard should only be whether the golfer hitting the shot was negligent, as opposed to acting recklessly or with intent to injure, and allowed the suit by the injured golfer.
In a 1975 Illinois case, one player kicked the opposing team's goalkeeper in the head. The goalkeeper had grabbed the soccer ball, but was inside a "penalty area" at the time (the area right in front of the goal). Soccer rules forbid players making any contact with a goalkeeper in possession of the ball in the penalty area. The court found that the offending player, by violating the rules, showed a "reckless for the safety of others," which the rule was designed to protect.
The general rule in many states is only intent to harm or reckless conduct will subject the injuring competitor to liability. In some jurisdictions, however, the injured player need only prove negligence under certain circumstances.
Defenses
The party charged with negligence may assert the defense that the injured player was also negligent, and therefore was partly responsible for the injury. In some states, a defense is allowed that the injured player assumed the risk of injury by playing the game. It is possible such defenses may reduce or even eliminate the liability of the player who inflicted the injury. The existence and effectiveness of such defenses, in addition to the requirements necessary to establish such defenses, depend upon local law.
Releases and Waivers of Liability
Schools, public facilities, and others that provide a venue and/or supervise athletic events, often have participants sign a release or waiver of liability before allowing them to use the facilities and participate in the sport, to avoid a later suit for injury. These waivers are frequently upheld and enforced in most jurisdictions, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Some states provide statutory exemptions from liability under certain circumstances.
A waiver or release signed by a minor, however, is generally not effective. Even signature by a parent or guardian generally does not bar a minor from suing for damages; it only bars the signer from suing. Such a document signed by an adult may also be invalidated if the injury resulted from a danger or hazard that is not generally anticipated in connection with that sporting activity. Enforcement and requirements for waivers and releases vary from state to state.
For example, an Illinois court enforced a release signed by a skier injured during a ski race. The skier sued the ski club that organized the race, claiming that the course was dangerous. The court disagreed and held that the risk was inherent in the intended conduct (the race), therefore the release was effective, even if the injury was not contemplated when the release was signed.