Yes, a player can be sued for this kind of hit. The court decided that football is not a lawless warzone where anything goes. There are rules to keep players safe, and intentionally breaking those rules to hurt someone is not 'just part of the game.' While players know they might get hurt from normal, legal plays, they don't agree to be illegally assaulted. The court said the standard to judge this by is 'reckless disregard,' which means you did something on purpose that you knew was super risky and likely to cause harm, even if you didn't mean to cause that specific, severe injury.

Yes, Hackbart can sue. The higher court said the first court was wrong. Just because football is rough doesn't mean players can do really dangerous things to each other on purpose or be super reckless without getting in trouble. I explain that hurting someone really badly on purpose is different than accidentally hurting them. I'm sending the case back to the lower court to look at the facts again and decide if Clark was way too dangerous and careless, or if he meant to hurt Hackbart really badly. Football can be rough, but the rules still don't let players hit each other like that.

Yes, Hackbart can sue. We find that the first court was wrong. Just because football is rough doesn't mean players can do very dangerous things to each other on purpose or be super reckless without getting in trouble. Hurting someone really badly on purpose is different than accidentally hurting them. We are sending the case back to the lower court to look at the facts again and decide if Clark was way too dangerous and careless, or if he meant to hurt Hackbart really badly. Football can be rough, but the rules still don't let players hit each other like that.

Simply by participating in the sport, participants could cause or suffer significant injuries, even though their conduct may fall within the rules, and indeed the purpose, of the sport.

In 1973, Charles "Booby" Clark of the Cincinnati Bengals hit Dale Hackbart of the Denver Broncos in the back

Under this regulation, football and hockey teams could be prohibited from adopting highways if they have ever been involved in litigation in which a court noticed the violence that inheres in those sports,

—considering Rule 404 (a) exceptions in civil action examining whether plaintiff was a "dirty football player

An injury inflicted by one player upon another during a professional football game may give rise to liability where the cause of the injury was an intentional blow

—allowing recovery when football player, in frustration and anger,'struck the back of opponent's head, who was kneeling on the ground watching the end of a play

—quoting 6 CJS Assault & Battery § 10 (3)(1975); that intent and recklessness are "not necessarily opposed one to the other,"

The Tenth Circuit distinctly found that "[t] he general customs of football do not approve the intentional punching or striking of others."

S] ubjecting another to unreasonable risk of harm, the essence of negligence, is inherent in the game of football, for admittedly it is violent

A defendant who is found liable for willful, wanton, and reckless conduct may incur civil sanction through punitive damages

No, the violent nature of professional football does not preclude a player from being held liable in tort for intentionally injuring an opponent. The principles of tort law apply to conduct within a professional football game, particularly when the conduct at issue is explicitly prohibited by the sport's own safety rules. The trial court erred in creating a judicial exception for football by holding as a matter of policy that the law should not apply. While players consent to the risks inherent in a violent game, they do not consent to being intentionally struck in a manner that is contrary to the rules and customs of the sport. The appropriate standard for liability in such a case is not negligence, but reckless disregard for the safety of others, as defined by the Restatement of Torts Second, § 500.

Yes, tort law does apply. The court concluded that the trial court erred in holding that injuries inflicted during a professional football game are categorically not actionable, because intentional or reckless conduct causing injury is not within the rules or customs of the game and is not exempt from legal liability. I distinguish between reckless and negligent conduct, applying the reckless disregard for safety standard defined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 500. I reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for a new trial, emphasizing that the general customs of football do not approve the intentional striking of others and that such conduct may give rise to liability if it is reckless or intended to cause harm, even if the magnitude of harm is not specifically intended. The case presents a factual question of whether Clark's actions met the standard of reckless misconduct.

Yes, tort law does apply. We conclude that the trial court erred in holding that injuries inflicted during a professional football game are categorically not actionable, because intentional or reckless conduct causing injury is not within the rules or customs of the game and is not exempt from legal liability. We distinguish between reckless and negligent conduct, applying the reckless disregard for safety standard defined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 500. We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for a new trial, emphasizing that the general customs of football do not approve the intentional striking of others and that such conduct may give rise to liability if it is reckless or intended to cause harm, even if the magnitude of harm is not specifically intended. The case presents a factual question of whether Clark’s actions met the standard of reckless misconduct.

Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot