Options re injury sustained on football pitch?

Kent Brockman

I know of an incident where there is a civil suit (action?) being taken by one player against another but that was due to an off the ball assault rendering the victim unconscious.

Does the same apply to a bad injury resulting from a late tackle/foul? Can the injured party make a claim for medical expenses against the offending player or the club involved?

Would be interested to hear replies, thanks

NoQuarter

I would imagine there is an implied consent in that case. Just as in you cant take an action against your opponent in a boxing match or if a doctor performs surgery on you.

It would probably be different if you go beyond that, like an off the ball incident like you said.

MrPudding

Kent Brockman wrote: »

I know of an incident where there is a civil suit (action?) being taken by one player against another but that was due to an off the ball assault rendering the victim unconscious.

Does the same apply to a bad injury resulting from a late tackle/foul? Can the injured party make a claim for medical expenses against the offending player or the club involved?

Would be interested to hear replies, thanks

I think the general rule is if you are taking part in a sport and are injured during the course of that sport, assuming the act that cause the injury was accidental, then you can't claim for the injury. Volenti non fit injuria, if you consent then there is no ground to sue.

I think if the tackle was outrageously bad then there might be grounds. I seem to recall it would need to be so unacceptable a tackle that there would be the potential for criminal charges to be brought.

MrP

234

MrPudding wrote: »

Volenti non fit injuria, if you consent then there is no ground to sue.

The 1961 Act got rid of this defence (according to McM & anyway. I think the implied consent idea is probably more accurate at the moment.

Kent Brockman

NoQuarter wrote: »

I would imagine there is an implied consent in that case. Just as in you cant take an action against your opponent in a boxing match or if a doctor performs surgery on you.

It would probably be different if you go beyond that, like an off the ball incident like you said.

Agree with you on the boxing alright, but the object of boxing is to KO your opponent and both fighters know this prior to the start of the match.
You do not expect to get knobbled playing football, although there is always a risk with any contact sport.

Duncan Fergeson got jailed for 3 months for headbutting an opponent off-the-ball during a soccer match.(but i believe he had several previous assaults off the pitch which were taken into consideration)

What I'm questioning is the late dangerous tackle which results in injury. Serious injury would not necessarily be the intent, more of a 'let him know he's in a game' type of hit, but the end result requires surgery to fix.

Kent Brockman

MrPudding wrote: »

I think the general rule is if you are taking part in a sport and are injured during the course of that sport, assuming the act that cause the injury was accidental, then you can't claim for the injury.

I think if the tackle was outrageously bad then there might be grounds. I seem to recall it would need to be so unacceptable a tackle that there would be the potential for criminal charges to be brought.

MrP

Seems reasonable (acceptable risk and all). Like my previous post, the foul was intended to 'shake the player up' or ' let him know he is in a game' etc. but I would safely assume that a career ending injury was not the intended outcome.

NoQuarter

The simple answer is the law is not black and white on the matter. There would be good arguments both ways Im sure. However, deciding one way would open up a can of worms so perhaps public policy reasons would have a role.

Zambia

Is the defence not called Amicable contest?

blueythebear

Kent Brockman wrote: »

I know of an incident where there is a civil suit (action?) being taken by one player against another but that was due to an off the ball assault rendering the victim unconscious.

Does the same apply to a bad injury resulting from a late tackle/foul? Can the injured party make a claim for medical expenses against the offending player or the club involved?

Would be interested to hear replies, thanks

From studying this area previously, I seem to recall that if the injury was caused by an act that was so far outside the rules of the game as to be able to be considered an assault, then you're looking at civil liability for the injury caused. A late tackle or a strong tackle to let the opponent kow you are there would not fall under this, I would have thought but it depends as always on the specific circumstances of the case.

jblack

Club probably will not be liable unless they did something to cause or aggravate an injury.

E.G footballer hurts his ankle and coach refuses to sub him off - and this causes further injury. The club can be liable here.

In your situation this doesn't appear likely from the facts presented

Assault is assault, on or off the pitch - although, and I no doubt will be corrected on this, a judge faced with a section 2 for a bit of handbags during a match would be fairly unimpressed with DPP. Key element here is intent (think Roy Keane and Alfe Inge Haalend) or recklessness. If the tackle was a deliberate or reckless act then perhaps a criminal charge and prosecution could be appropriate (as the previous poster rightly points out the tackle would have to fairly ridiculous and not within contemplation of the ordinary conduct of the game).




Ditto in a civil case

McCrack

NoQuarter wrote: »

I would imagine there is an implied consent in that case. Just as in you cant take an action against your opponent in a boxing match or if a doctor performs surgery on you.

It would probably be different if you go beyond that, like an off the ball incident like you said.

This is incorrect. A patient can most definitely sue a doctor and by extension his/her hospital (usually the HSE is named) for negligent treatment, misdiagnoses etc

See Dunne v National Maternity Hospital for guidance

A civil and criminal case can (and have) been taken against players when it can be shown their actions were intentional to cause injury.

NoQuarter

McCrack wrote: »

This is incorrect. A patient can most definitely sue a doctor and by extension his/her hospital (usually the HSE is named) for negligent treatment, misdiagnoses etc

See Dunne v National Maternity Hospital for guidance

A civil and criminal case can (and have) been taken against players when it can be shown their actions were intentional to cause injury.

Thanks for that tort lesson but the issue was about implied consent (or express consent as would be the case in surgery) and not about medical negligence in general.

McCrack

I know what the OP asked and consents don't come into it. If an opponent on a pitch commits an assault (an action over and above what would be considered normal or at least expected) he commits an assault. Proving it in a sporting situation is very difficult but it has happened nonetheless.

Your analogy to doctors performing surgery doesn't make sense and it wasn't correct to say a person cannot take action against a doctor for surgery performed. That could not be more incorrect, that's why I mentioned the Dunne case in case you were not aware of it.

Flincher

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/2325933/Phil-Greening-guilty-over-Rougerie-injury.html

This is a French case which might be of interest to some here. The injury was caused by "a technical foul against the spirit of the game" which is a far lower threshold than here.

NoQuarter

McCrack wrote: »

I know what the OP asked and consents don't come into it. If an opponent on a pitch commits an assault (an action over and above what would be considered normal or at least expected) he commits an assault. Proving it in a sporting situation is very difficult but it has happened nonetheless.

Your analogy to doctors performing surgery doesn't make sense and it wasn't correct to say a person cannot take action against a doctor for surgery performed. That could not be more incorrect, that's why I mentioned the Dunne case in case you were not aware of it.

Consent doesnt come into it?? Eh!? Its assault we're talking about here, its in the very definition! Look at s.2 NFOAP Act!!

You completely misunderstood my analogy and have taken it out of context! I am well aware (overly aware) of Dunne but the issue is nothing to do with medical negligence, or a doctor performing a surgery NEGLIGENTLY, but rather a doctor performing a surgery without CONSENT. Again, go look up the definition of assault!

McCrack

NFOAPA is criminal legislation, irrelevant to the query the OP raised and irrelevant to civil proceedings. That's why I said consents do not come into it.

I "misunderstood" your analogy to a doctor being immune from suit because it doesn't make any sense.

NoQuarter

McCrack wrote: »

I "misunderstood" your analogy to a doctor being immune from suit because it doesn't make any sense.

...to you....

McCrack

NoQuarter wrote: »

...to you....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QKAbuoB24U

NoQuarter

McCrack wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QKAbuoB24U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_6u4c-BfEk