Nabozny v. Barnhill
334 N.E.2d 258, 77 A.L.R. 3d 1294, 31 Ill. App. 3d 212 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A participant in an organized amateur athletic competition owes a legal duty to other players to refrain from conduct proscribed by safety rules, and is liable for injuries if their conduct is deliberate, willful, or shows a reckless disregard for the safety of other players.
Facts:
- Julian Nabozny was playing goalkeeper for the Hansa team, and David Barnhill was playing forward for the Winnetka team, in an amateur high-school age soccer match in Winnetka, Illinois.
- During the game, a Winnetka player kicked the ball over midfield, and Jim Gallos (Hansa) and David Barnhill (Winnetka) chased it.
- Jim Gallos reached the ball first, passed it to Julian Nabozny, the Hansa goalkeeper, who went down on his left knee, received the pass, and pulled the ball to his chest while remaining within the penalty area.
- David Barnhill, an opposing player, continued running towards Julian Nabozny, despite having time to avoid contact, and kicked the left side of Nabozny's head.
- Julian Nabozny, who was in possession of the ball in the penalty area, suffered severe and permanent injuries to his skull and brain as a result of being struck.
- The game was played under F.I.F.A. rules, which prohibit any contact with a goalkeeper in possession of the ball in the penalty area, even if such contact is unintentional.
- All occurrence witnesses agreed David Barnhill had time to avoid contact, and expert witnesses agreed such contact should not have occurred and that goalkeeper head injuries are extremely rare.
Procedural Posture:
- Julian Claudio Nabozny, a minor, by his father Edward J. Nabozny, commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly caused by David Barnhill's negligence in the Circuit Court of Cook County (trial court).
- The trial was held before a jury.
- At the close of the plaintiff’s case, defendant David Barnhill moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted the motion and directed a verdict in favor of David Barnhill.
- Julian Nabozny appealed the order granting the motion for a directed verdict to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division (intermediate 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:
Does a participant in an organized amateur athletic competition owe a legal duty to other players to refrain from conduct proscribed by safety rules, thereby making them liable for injuries caused by deliberate, willful, or reckless disregard for safety?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Adesko
Yes, a participant in an organized amateur athletic competition does owe a legal duty to other players to refrain from conduct proscribed by safety rules, and is liable for injuries if their conduct is deliberate, willful, or shows a reckless disregard for the safety of other players. The court acknowledged the need to avoid placing unreasonable burdens on free and vigorous participation in sports by youth, but stressed that organized athletic competition does not exist in a vacuum, requiring 'restraints of civilization' and promoting discipline. The court established that a legal duty arises when athletes are engaged in organized competition, trained by knowledgeable personnel, governed by a recognized set of rules, and those rules contain a safety provision primarily designed to protect players from serious injury. In such a scenario, a player has a duty to refrain from conduct proscribed by a safety rule. The court explicitly rejected the defendant's contention that a player is immune from tort action for injuries occurring during a game, stating that liability can arise if conduct is deliberate, willful, or with a reckless disregard for another player's safety. The court further found that Julian Nabozny was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law, as he was playing his position properly, had possession of the ball in a safe area, and had no reason to anticipate the danger posed by David Barnhill. Applying the standard from Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern R.R. Co., the court concluded that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant, as the questions of negligence and contributory negligence were factual matters to be decided by a jury.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational precedent in sports injury litigation, significantly departing from traditional notions of inherent risk or immunity in athletic contests. It establishes a 'reckless disregard' standard for liability, which is higher than ordinary negligence but lower than intentional torts, for injuries sustained in organized sports. This ruling underscores that while vigorous play is encouraged, it does not excuse conduct that deliberately, willfully, or recklessly violates safety rules designed to prevent serious harm. Its impact is substantial, influencing how duty of care is understood and applied in various contact sports, promoting adherence to safety regulations, and ensuring that questions of fact regarding player conduct are generally left to a jury.
