Nixon v. Clay
2019 UT 32 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Participants in a sporting event owe no duty of care to co-participants for injuries arising from conduct that is inherent in the sport. This rule applies regardless of whether the sport is classified as a 'contact' sport and does not require the defendant's conduct to be reckless or intentional.
Facts:
- Judd Nixon and Edward Clay were playing on opposing teams in a church-sponsored recreational basketball game.
- Nixon dribbled the ball down the court and prepared to take a shot near the foul line.
- Clay pursued Nixon and extended his right arm over Nixon's shoulder in an attempt to contest the shot and reach for the ball.
- As Nixon came to a sudden "jump stop," Clay's arm made contact with Nixon's right shoulder.
- Upon contact, Nixon felt his left knee pop and both men fell to the ground.
- Nixon sustained a serious knee injury as a result of the collision.
- The referee officiating the game determined the contact was not intentional and called a common foul on Clay.
Procedural Posture:
- Judd Nixon filed a complaint against Edward Clay in the Fourth District Court for Utah County, alleging negligence.
- Clay filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing for the adoption of a 'contact sports exception' to negligence.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment for Clay, holding that under the contact sports exception, Clay was not liable because his conduct was not willful or reckless.
- Nixon, as appellant, filed a direct appeal of the district court's decision to the Utah Supreme Court, with Clay as the appellee.
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 a sporting event owe a duty of care to other participants to avoid causing injuries through conduct that is inherent in the sport?
Opinions:
Majority - Associate Chief Justice Lee
No. A participant in a sporting event does not owe a duty of care to other participants to avoid causing injuries through conduct that is inherent in the sport. The court rejects the majority rule's 'contact sports exception,' which predicates liability on reckless or intentional conduct and requires a court to first classify a sport as 'contact.' This approach is problematic because some intentional or reckless contact is an expected part of many sports, and the 'contact sport' classification can be arbitrary. Instead, the court adopts a simpler framework rooted in the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, which holds that participants implicitly consent to dangers inherent in a voluntary activity. The key inquiry is not the defendant's state of mind but whether the conduct causing the injury was inherent in the sport. In this case, Clay's act of 'reaching in' and 'swiping at the basketball'—which resulted in a common foul—is an inherent part of the game of basketball. Because Clay's conduct was inherent to the sport, he owed no duty to Nixon to prevent the resulting injury.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a new, simplified standard for sports-related tort liability in Utah, departing from the more common 'reckless or intentional conduct' standard. By adopting an 'inherency' test based on primary assumption of risk, the court shifts the legal analysis from the defendant's subjective state of mind to the objective nature of the sport itself. This framework provides broader protection for participants across all types of sports, not just those traditionally labeled 'contact sports.' Future litigation in this area will likely focus on defining what specific actions are 'inherent' to various sports, potentially requiring expert testimony and detailed factual analysis of game rules, strategies, and customs.
