Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.

Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. - the trial court...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. 601 F.2d 516 Fact: Operative Facts: A football player struck another player with his arm, to the plaintiff’s head, which caused a neck injury. The trial court stated that it was part of the nature of the game, that there would be injures and that it would not be covered under intentional torts. However, the move used was considered to violate the rules of the game, and is strictly prohibited in the rulebook. Issue: Whether there can be an intentional battery in football Rule: Battery, the unlawful or offensive touching of another without their consent. Rational: The court saw that this was a strictly prohibited act of the game, so they reasoned that
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: the trial court looked at the wrong issue. The issue wasn’t whether or not the game was violent, but if the act itself was part of the game. It was a prohibited act ending after a play. There can be a battery Holding: Narrow: In football, if one player strikes another intentionally, using a prohibited move, forbidden by the rulebooks of the game, then they may have commited a tortious battery Broad: If an act is outside of a scope of a rough game like football, and the act would have consituted as a battery, then it may still be considered as a tortious action, and is not immune through the rough nature of the game. Synthesis: Dissent/Concurrences:...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online