86%(14)12 out of 14 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 out of 1 page.
Case Name:Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.Case Citation:Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F. 2d 516 (10thCir. 1979).Statement of Facts: 1.The Plaintiff was injured in a professional football game when he played against the Cincinnati Bengals. Defendant’s player, Clark, struck Plaintiff in the back of the head with his elbow. 2.Plaintiff sued Defendant for assault and battery.3.Trial court found that Clark struck Plaintiff out of anger and frustration from losing but not with the intent to injure him.4.Trial court concluded that even though the act was intentional, Defendant was not liable because football is a violent game and proper remedy is allowed by the rules of the game (penalties). Procedural History: 1.Trial Court found for Defendant.2.10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, remanded.Issues: If the Plaintiff does agree or consent to participate in a football game where harm or