More on Civil Lawsuits for Injuries in Contact Sports:

As I mentioned yesterday, former NHL player Steve Moore has filed a civil lawsuit against Todd Bertuzzi, the Vancouver Canucks, the Canucks coach, and the team's owners for injuries stemming from the punch Bertuzzi threw at Moore in a game last year. After the hit, Moore fell to the ice, suffering a concussion and a neck injury that may have ended his career. The suit is for assault and battery, negligence and outrageous conduct, and civil conspiracy. I suppose the last claim was included because of the claim that the Canucks were out to get Moore, in retribution for an incident in an earlier game. Many are surprised that the NHL was not included in the suit for "creating a culture of violence."

Moore has already faced criminal charges for the incident. He plead guilty and was fined $500 Canadian.

Halfway across the world, an Australian court has paved the way for an injured rugby player to collect damages from two players that ended his playing career with an illegal tackle. The injured player received serious neck and spinal injuries when the two opponents performed an "illegal throw" on him.

I simply have a hard time understanding these cases. Rugby and hockey are two of the most violent sports in the world. There should not be any legal liability (criminally or in tort) for actions that (1) occur on the field and (2) are within the bounds of the sport. A late hit in football should not lead to legal liability and I am afraid the system is on the path towards this exact result. But my rule does not protect the NBA player that grabs a chair and hits an opposing player during a brawl. In the two cases above (and the Temple case discussed yesterday), the acts involved are part of the sport. Players punch and blind-side one another in hockey; rugby is full of hard tackles (and much worse conduct); hard fouls are a part of basketball. Part of playing the sport is assuming the risk of unsportsmanlike conduct. That is why sports have rules in place to deal with it. There would be no unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in football, no red card in soccer, and no technical foul in basketball if this conduct was considered far outside the realm of the sport.

It is some consolation that in the rugby case the judge found an "intent to harm." I think this could also be a helpful dividing line. But many of the claims asserted or discussed do not reach this level and lead me to believe that the legal system is not the appropriate venue for such grievances.

Posted in: