McAdams v. Windham
94 So. 742, 208 Ala. 492, 30 A.L.R. 194 (1922)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A participant in a friendly, consensual, and lawful sporting contest is not liable for an injury to another participant if the injury results from conduct that is within the ordinary scope of the activity and is not reckless, negligent, or intentionally wrongful.
Facts:
- William Curtis McAdams and the defendant, Windham, were friends who had frequently engaged in friendly boxing contests in the past.
- McAdams and Windham mutually agreed to engage in a friendly sparring match at Windham's place of business.
- During the contest, which was conducted in good faith and a spirit of play, both men struck each other with their bared fists.
- Windham struck McAdams with a blow over the heart.
- Immediately after being struck, McAdams staggered, collapsed, and died within a few minutes.
- A subsequent examination of McAdams's body revealed a bruised area over the heart.
Procedural Posture:
- The administratrix of William Curtis McAdams's estate, the plaintiff, sued Windham, the defendant, in a trial court for wrongful death arising from an alleged assault and battery.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence at trial, the defendant requested an affirmative charge (equivalent to a directed verdict).
- The trial court granted the defendant's request and entered judgment in his favor.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the reviewing appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a participant in a friendly, consensual sparring match liable for the death of the other participant when the death results from a blow struck without negligence, recklessness, or intentional conduct that exceeds the scope of the consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Gardner, J.
No. A participant is not liable for an injury occurring during a consensual, friendly sporting contest, provided the conduct causing the injury was not reckless, negligent, or intentionally wrongful. The court applied the legal maxim 'volenti non fit injuria,' which means that harm suffered by consent is generally not the basis for a civil action. Both McAdams and Windham consented to participate in a friendly boxing match, thereby assuming the ordinary risks incident to that sport. The evidence showed the match was carried on in good faith and was similar to their previous contests. There was no evidence that Windham acted with recklessness or negligence, or that his conduct went beyond the implied consent of the game. Liability for a lawful act depends on whether a prudent person would have foreseen the resulting injury, not on the tragic consequence alone, and McAdams's death was an unforeseeable result of an ordinary blow in a friendly match.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the defense of consent in tort law, particularly within the context of informal recreational and sporting activities. It clarifies that consent immunizes a participant from liability for injuries that are inherent risks of the activity, so long as the participant's conduct does not exceed the scope of that consent. The decision distinguishes between assumed risks and conduct that is negligent, reckless, or intentionally harmful, which falls outside the protective scope of consent. This ruling is significant because it protects individuals from liability for unfortunate, unforeseeable accidents that occur during commonplace recreational activities, reinforcing the principle that tort liability requires fault, not merely causation.
