The Court went on to say that the existence of such rules demonstrates that

The court went on to say that the existence of such

This preview shows page 1 out of 1 page.

The Court went on to say that the existence of such rules demonstrates that there are  limits as to what constitutes acceptable behavior in the sport, and Plaintiff was entitled to  have the case tried on an assessment of his rights.  (Reversed and remanded for a new  trial).   Pre-Existing Rules: All players are prohibited from striking on the head face or neck with the heel, back, or side of the hand, wrist forearm elbow or clasped hands. (Article 1, Item 1, Subsection C) Reasoning: The Court of Appeals said that football’s violent nature does not terminate  all rights to recover for truly dangerous and shocking conduct that is beyond the  reasonable conduct of what professional football includes. Dissents/Concurrences : none Analysis : I agree with the outcome in this case. I think if a player takes things into his own hands an intentionally inflicts harm on another player outside the rules, he should be liable for a tort. The game of football itself is violent enough, and when people make that worse, everyone suffers. Is there any kind of implied consent here where people who play are aware of the dangers?
Image of page 1

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read the whole page?

  • Fall '14
  • Marie Boyd
  • Appellate court, intentional¬†striking

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture