100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 2 pages.
Hackbart v Cincinnati Bengals, Inc601 F. 2d 516 (10thCir. 1979)Procedural HistoryTrial court found in favor of Defendant (Cincinnati Bengals) against Plaintiff (DaleHackbart) claim that Defendant (Charles Clark of the Cincinnati Bengals) intentionally causedinjury (neck fracture) during a football game against the Denver Broncos. Trial court found thatClark was “acting out of anger and frustration, but without a specific intent to injure.” Federalcourt judgment found by trial judges for the Defendants. The Plaintiff appealed to Federalappellate court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.Statement of Facts:Plaintiff a professional football player for the Denver Broncos, tried to block the Defendantwho played for the Cincinnati Bengals during a play. The defendant admitted that out of angerand frustration he hit the plaintiff on the back of his head with his forearm. They continued withthe game without a foul being called. Plaintiff did not report the incident to his coaches or toanyone during the game. Plaintiff went to play golf the next day but due to pain he couldn’t play.