Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.
1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14408, 435 F. Supp. 352 (1977)
Rule of Law:
Professional football players, by participating in the sport, assume the risk of injuries resulting from aggressive, even rule-violating, conduct that is an accepted part of the game's inherent violence, thereby generally precluding tort liability for negligence or recklessness in the absence of specific intent to injure or conduct entirely outside the accepted norms of the sport.
Facts:
- On September 16, 1973, during a professional football game between the Denver Broncos and the Cincinnati Bengals, Dale Hackbart was playing free safety for the Broncos, and Charles Clark was playing fullback for the Bengals.
- Near the end of the first half, a Denver linebacker intercepted a pass near the goal line, reversing the offensive and defensive roles of the teams.
- As Hackbart watched the play continue upfield from a kneeling position, Charles Clark, acting out of anger and frustration but without a specific intent to injure, struck Hackbart in the back of the head with his right forearm, causing both players to fall.
- No official observed the incident, no foul was called, and both Hackbart and Clark returned to play during the second half of the game.
- Hackbart experienced pain and soreness, but despite this, he played in two subsequent games for the Denver Broncos.
- After being released by the Denver Broncos on waivers, Hackbart sought medical assistance and was diagnosed with a neck injury, receiving full payment for the 1973 season under his contract's injury clause.
- Professional football is characterized by violent physical behavior, frequent rule violations, disabling injuries, and coaches who deliberately foster extreme aggressiveness and a 'controlled rage' in players.
- Incidents like the one involving Hackbart and Clark are not unusual or unexpected in NFL games.
Procedural Posture:
- Dale Hackbart, a citizen of Colorado, filed a civil action against Charles Clark and the Cincinnati Bengals Football Club, Inc., citizens of other states, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
- Jurisdiction for the case was based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- By agreement of the parties, a separate trial to the court was held on the question of liability, with issues of damages and causation reserved for later proceedings.
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 an act of striking an opposing player during a professional football game, committed out of anger and frustration but without specific intent to injure, constitute reckless misconduct or negligence sufficient to impose tort liability, or is such an act subject to the defense of assumption of the risk?
Opinions:
Majority - Matsch, Judge
No, an act of striking an opposing player during a professional football game, committed out of anger and frustration but without specific intent to injure, is subject to the defense of assumption of the risk, thereby precluding tort liability for reckless misconduct or negligence. The court found that professional football, as a commercial enterprise, is inherently violent, and players are trained and motivated to be exceedingly aggressive, often to a 'controlled rage,' with little regard for opposing players' safety. While Hackbart claimed reckless misconduct (citing Section 500 of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, and Colorado precedents like Fanstiel v. Wright and Coffman v. Godsoe) and negligence, the court determined that the violent and aggressive nature of NFL competition negates any notion that playing conduct can be circumscribed by a standard of reasonableness typically applied in tort law. The court concluded that Hackbart, given his experience, must have recognized and accepted the risk of injury from such an act, invoking the defense of assumption of the risk. Thus, even if Clark breached a duty, Hackbart's assumption of the risk prevented recovery. The court also rejected claims based on contract liability (finding rules of play were not for the benefit of opposing players), outrageous conduct (Hackbart did not suffer severe emotional distress, and Clark's action was not outside NFL norms, distinguishing Rugg v. McCarty), and interference with contract (no intent to cause a breach, citing Comtrol, Inc. v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.). The court expressed a strong judicial reluctance to regulate the violence in professional football, stating that courts are not well-suited for such a task due to the game's subjective rules, frequent collisions, and 'morality of the battlefield.' It distinguished professional football from youth sports, where a duty of care was recognized in Nabozny v. Barnhill, suggesting that any necessary changes to player safety should come from the legislative branch or league self-regulation.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the applicability of traditional tort principles like negligence and recklessness within the context of professional sports, particularly professional football. It establishes that the inherent violence and accepted 'morality of the battlefield' in such sports create a strong presumption of assumption of risk by participants for actions that might otherwise constitute tortious conduct in a different setting. The ruling underscores a judicial reluctance to intervene in the self-regulation of professional sports leagues, asserting that issues of player safety and behavioral control are better addressed by legislation or league policy than by individual litigation. This approach could influence how courts handle similar injury claims in other high-contact professional sports, emphasizing the contextual nature of tort liability.
