Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortplaintiffdefendantjurisdictionliabilitytrialsustained
tortplaintiffdefendantliabilitytrial

Related Cases

Zemke v. Arreola, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2006 WL 1587101
View Case »
Van Valkenburg v. Liberty Lodge No. 300 A.F. & A.M., 9 Neb.App. 782, 619 N.W.2d 604
View Case »
Branion v. Wallace, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 11633674
View Case »
Gulf South Conference v. Boyd, 369 So.2d 553
View Case »
Washington v. Indiana High School Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 181 F.3d 840, 136 Ed. Law Rep. 713, 9 A.D. Cases 804, 15 NDLR P 247
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F.2d 516, 4 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1042

Facts

The case arose from an incident during a professional football game between the Denver Broncos and the Cincinnati Bengals in 1973, where plaintiff Dale Hackbart was intentionally struck on the back of the head by defendant Charles Clark. The injury occurred after a pass play, and although Hackbart did not report the incident during the game, he later sought medical attention due to persistent pain, which revealed a serious neck fracture. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, asserting that the nature of professional football rendered such injuries non-actionable.

The injury occurred in the course of a game between the Denver Broncos and the Cincinnati Bengals, which game was being played in Denver in 1973. The Broncos' defensive back, Dale Hackbart, was the recipient of the injury and the Bengals' offensive back, Charles 'Booby' Clark, inflicted the blow which produced it.

Issue

Whether a professional football player can be held liable in tort for injuries inflicted during a game by intentionally striking an opposing player.

The question in this case is whether in a regular season professional football game an injury which is inflicted by one professional football player on an opposing player can give rise to liability in tort where the injury was inflicted by the intentional striking of a blow during the game.

Rule

The court held that tort law principles apply to injuries sustained during professional football games, and that recklessness, rather than assault and battery, is the appropriate standard for liability. The court emphasized that intentional acts of violence are not condoned by the rules of football, and that the existence of jurisdiction is mandatory when it is present.

Principles of law governing infliction of injuries are not to be disregarded merely because a player's injury occurs in course of a professional football game.

Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the injury and the conduct of the players, determining that the intentional striking of a player in the head is not an accepted part of the game. The trial court's reasoning that the violent nature of football precludes legal liability was rejected, as the court found that the rules of the game prohibit such conduct. The court concluded that the principles of tort law must be applied, and that the standard of recklessness is appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The evidence at the trial uniformly supported the proposition that the intentional striking of a player in the head from the rear is not an accepted part of either the playing rules or the general customs of the game of professional football.

Conclusion

The court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial, affirming that tort law applies to injuries sustained during professional football games.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Who won?

The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Dale Hackbart, by reversing the trial court's judgment for the defendants. The appellate court found that the trial court had erred in dismissing the case based on the nature of professional football, emphasizing that tort law principles should not be disregarded simply because the injury occurred during a game. The court recognized the importance of allowing players to seek redress for injuries caused by reckless conduct, thereby upholding the rights of individuals to seek legal remedies.

The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Dale Hackbart, by reversing the trial court's judgment for the defendants.

You must be