Overall v. Kadella
361 N.W.2d 352 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A participant in an athletic event consents to bodily contacts permitted by the rules of the game but does not consent to intentional acts that violate the game's safety rules. An athlete who intentionally or recklessly injures another participant in violation of such rules can be held liable for battery.
Facts:
- Two amateur hockey teams, the Waterford Lakers and the Clarkston Flyers, played a game, with the plaintiff on the Lakers and the defendant on the Flyers.
- After the game concluded, a fight broke out between the defendant and one of the plaintiff's teammates.
- The altercation escalated into a general brawl, with players from both benches joining in.
- During the fight, the plaintiff remained seated on the players' bench.
- The defendant skated over to the bench and struck the plaintiff in the face with his fist.
- The blow knocked the plaintiff unconscious and caused fractures to the bones around his right eye.
- Fighting is a violation of the rules of the Michigan Amateur Hockey Association, which are designed to stop violence.
Procedural Posture:
- The case was originally filed in the Oakland County Circuit Court.
- After a mediation award was rejected by both parties, the case was removed to the 48th District Court.
- The district court held a bench trial and found in favor of the plaintiff.
- The district court awarded the plaintiff $21,000 in actual damages and an additional $25,000 in exemplary damages.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment.
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 hockey game implicitly consent to being intentionally struck by an opponent in a manner that violates the game's safety rules, thereby barring a tort action for battery?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A participant in a sporting event does not consent to an intentional battery that violates the safety rules of the game. While participation in a game implies consent to bodily contacts permitted by its rules, it does not extend to intentional acts that go beyond what is ordinarily permissible, which constitute an assault and battery for which recovery may be had. Citing 'Nabozny v. Barnhill,' the court reasoned that athletes have a legal duty to refrain from conduct proscribed by safety rules. Organized athletic competition does not exist in a vacuum, and the restraints of civilization must apply. A player is liable for an injury if their conduct is deliberate, willful, or shows a reckless disregard for the safety of another player. In this case, the defendant's intentional battery violated the hockey league's explicit rule against fighting, a rule designed to prevent violence. Furthermore, the incident occurred after the game had ended, making the defense of consent even less applicable.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the consent defense in the context of contact sports, establishing that the 'rules of the game' can define the legal boundaries of consent. It affirms that while athletes assume the risk of injuries inherent to the sport, they do not assume the risk of intentional torts that violate established safety rules. The ruling reinforces a legal standard that holds athletes accountable for conduct that is deliberate or reckless, preventing the playing field from becoming a lawless zone. This precedent influences how courts analyze liability for injuries in sports, shifting focus from a blanket assumption of risk to whether the conduct at issue falls outside the accepted norms and safety rules of the activity.
Unlock the full brief for Overall v. Kadella