Gauvin v. Clark
404 Mass. 450, 1989 Mass. LEXIS 89, 537 N.E.2d 94 (1989)
Rule of Law:
Participants in an athletic event owe a duty to other participants to refrain from reckless misconduct, and liability may result from injuries caused by a breach of that duty, rather than from mere negligence or the violation of a safety rule alone.
Facts:
- On January 30, 1980, Robert J. Gauvin played center for the Worcester State College varsity hockey team, and Richard Clark played center for the Nichols College team.
- During the second period of a game between the two teams, Gauvin was involved in a face-off with Clark.
- After Clark won the face-off and the puck slid down the ice, Gauvin felt a stick in his abdomen and saw Clark’s hockey stick coming away from him, with the “butt-end” protruding from Clark’s hands.
- Harry Maxfield, a teammate of Gauvin, testified that he saw Clark deliver a shot to Gauvin’s midsection after the puck had moved toward the Nichols goal.
- The blow to Gauvin’s abdomen occurred after the face-off was completed and when Gauvin and Clark were no longer competing for the puck.
- As a result of the blow, Gauvin was hospitalized, underwent surgery to remove his spleen, missed seven weeks of school, and continues to suffer from bladder and abdominal pain.
- Hockey safety rules prohibit “butt-ending,” which is defined as driving the end of the stick not in contact with the puck into another player’s body; this conduct is unexpected, unsportsmanlike, and results in a major penalty and disqualification.
- Both Gauvin and Clark understood the game was played according to a recognized set of rules, including the prohibition on butt-ending, which was designed for player protection.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert J. Gauvin initially brought a case against Richard Clark and other defendants in the Superior Court of Massachusetts.
- The case was transferred to the District Court.
- The District Court judge found in favor of all defendants.
- The Appellate Division of the District Courts reviewed the District Court judge's report and dismissed it, finding no reversible error.
- The case was then retransferred to the Superior Court for a jury trial.
- The jury, in the Superior Court, found that Clark had butt-ended Gauvin, violated a safety rule causing injuries, and that Gauvin did not consent to the act causing his injury.
- However, the jury specifically concluded that Clark had not acted wilfully, wantonly, or recklessly in causing Gauvin’s injury, though they assessed damages in the amount of $30,000.
- Based on the jury’s finding that Clark did not act with reckless misconduct, the Superior Court judge entered judgment in favor of the defendant Clark.
- Gauvin subsequently moved for a new trial or to alter and amend the judgment, which the Superior Court judge denied.
- Gauvin appealed from the Superior Court judgment.
- On its own initiative, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case to itself.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a participant in an athletic event owe a duty to other participants to refrain from mere negligence, or must their conduct rise to the level of reckless misconduct for liability to attach for injuries caused?
Opinions:
Majority - Abrams, J.
No, a participant in an athletic event does not owe a duty to other participants to refrain from mere negligence; rather, liability for injuries caused must be predicated on reckless misconduct. The court held that participants in athletic events owe a duty to other participants to refrain from reckless misconduct. While players, by engaging in sport, consent to some physical contacts, courts are hesitant to impose broad tort liability on sports participants, fearing it would "chill the vigor of athletic competition." However, the court also recognized that "some of the restraints of civilization must accompany every athlete on to the playing field," and "reasonable controls should exist to protect the players and the game." The court adopted the standard of reckless disregard for safety, noting that it is followed by a majority of jurisdictions (citing Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., Nabozny v. Barnhill, Ross v. Clouser, Kabella v. Bouschelle, and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500). This standard, the court reasoned, diminishes the need for players to seek retaliation and prevents the chilling of vigorous participation. The court clarified that the leading case of Nabozny v. Barnhill, despite some language, ultimately establishes a standard of willfulness or a reckless disregard of safety, not mere breach of a safety rule. Since the jury specifically found that Clark had not acted wilfully, wantonly, or recklessly, the judge correctly entered judgment in favor of Clark, despite the jury's findings that Clark had butt-ended Gauvin and violated a safety rule causing injury. The court also affirmed the Superior Court's decision to admit the District Court judge's finding into evidence, concluding that the District Court judge’s ruling was based on a determination of witness credibility, not an error of law regarding the sufficiency of evidence to support a finding of recklessness.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant standard of care for athletic participants in Massachusetts, requiring injuries to result from reckless misconduct rather than mere negligence for liability to attach. This ruling reflects a balance between the need to deter dangerous behavior in sports and the policy of fostering vigorous athletic competition without unduly chilling participation through excessive litigation. By aligning Massachusetts with the majority of jurisdictions on this issue, the court provides clarity for future sports-related injury claims and sets a high bar for tort recovery in contact sports, emphasizing that accepted risks include ordinary negligent acts.
