+- International Simulation Football League (https://forums.sim-football.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Media (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Graded Articles (https://forums.sim-football.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+---- Thread: *Assumption of Risk in Football (/showthread.php?tid=48747)
*Assumption of Risk in Football - amjohnson636 - 12-01-2023
DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER YET AND STILL A STUDENT. THIS IS BY NO MEANS LEGAL ADVICE NOR SHOULD IT BE REGARDED AS SUCH FROM A PROFESSIONAL. THIS IS SIMPLY ME STATING MY THOUGHTS AND RELATING IT TO WHAT I HAVE LEARNED.
With that out of the way howdy everyone, AJ here and today we are going to be discussing why you can't sue each other while playing football. Additionally, I will speak briefly about a certain situation where there could have been legal action in my unprofessional opinion.
In the class torts one of the defenses, we have learned is the assumption of risk defense. A tort is simply a wrongdoing against another person. So, this is not related to criminal charges. Football is undoubtedly an aggressive sport, between the battles in the trenches, the one-on-one WR/CB clashes, and of course the hits there is a lot of action that takes place. That being said, players give up their right to sue each other and the teams their opponent plays for via respondeat superior (boss is liable for employee's actions on the job) due to the "Assumption of Risk Defense" to bringing about a tort in suit. For the defense to take place, the defendant must 1. Show that the plaintiff voluntarily acted. 2. With knowledge of the risks. 3. And did so reasonably. The standard rule at hand is that you assume all risks unless conduct is way outside the range of "ordinary activity". Taking that into mind here is how that applies to football (and many other sports). Another player will obviously be playing voluntarily, meeting the first element. Any football player knows the game is a physical game, so they are well aware of the risks. Finally, doing so reasonably is participating in the game due to the fact that they get paid, therefore justifying playing in the game. The only time when a player could bring a suit is when the conduct is outside the range of "ordinary activity". The example I would bring here is Myles Garrett attacking the player on the Steelers with the other player's own helmet. While there is contact with equipment between players taking another player's equipment and further attacking them with said equipment that they are no longer wearing to protect themselves is outside of the range of "ordinary activity". So once again in my UNPROFESSIONAL AND UNLISCENED opinion I think that Myles Garrett could have been taken to civil court on this incident.
WORD COUNT: 408
RE: Assumption of Risk in Football - JoeSteel - 12-01-2023
What about kicking a kicker???
RE: Assumption of Risk in Football - 37thchamber - 12-01-2023
this sort of thing came up recently in the news in britain when adam johnson died after a freak accident in an ice hockey game.
there are some cases in sport where participants have been charged outside the game for incidents which happened in-game and were considered breaches of law, though. at least in britain. they almost always happen for incidents "off the ball" -- where the "ordinary activity" situation you mention wouldn't have applied; though it's worth noting that in sports like american football, "off the ball" doesn't work the same way as it does in association football or rugby, where the rules around blocking are a bit different, let's say. there have been a number of incidents (mostly in rugby) similar to the myles garrett one where the offending player has actually been found guilty of a crime (usually some form of grievous bodily harm). there was also one recently with an amateur rugby player who made a bad tackle and left the opponent paraplegic. he was found liable in a civil court. probably a bunch of others if i went looking for them.
a famous example where criminal culpability looked absolutely nailed on, but didnt reach the bar is when ben thatcher challenged pedro mendes, leading with the elbow (video). the challenge rendered mendes unconscious and in need of oxygen. en route to the hospital, he had a seizure. thatcher didn't even get sent off during the match for this challenge, despite it almost certainly meeting the red card criteria of "reckless endangerment" and "violent conduct". this happened after the precedent setting case of R v Barnes (2004) which set a very high bar, and almost allowed the justice system to wash its hands of the need to actually rule on such incidents. but that's because of the "sporting exception" established in R v Brown (1993) which basically underlines that participants in contact sports assume the risk of injury "conceivably of sufficient severity to amount to grievous bodily harm" by taking part.
all this to say that civil cases (torts) are far more likely for grievances like this in sport, and even then, the bar for culpability is often so high it doesn't really matter. it's like contact sports have a built-in waiver almost. you pretty much have to go out of your way to deliberately, seriously harm someone, and do it in such a way that it can't be considered part of the playing culture of the sport, or something that happened in the heat of the moment (depending on the level and exposure of the competition, for example).
(also studied law, but like... almost 20 years ago lol; im a bit rusty these days)