Philip Larson Page 39 Torts I Case Briefs 20 Hackbart v Cincinatti Bengals Inc

Philip larson page 39 torts i case briefs 20 hackbart

This preview shows page 39 - 42 out of 93 pages.

Philip Larson Page 39
Image of page 39
Torts I: Case Briefs 20. Hackbart v. Cincinatti Bengals, Inc (Privileges - Consent) 20.1 Title and Citation Hackbart v. Cincinatti Bengals, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1979 p89 20.2 Facts Hackbart (P) was hit in the back of the head by Charles Clark of the Bengals (D) with enough force to knock both players down (during a football game). Strike was not accidental but trial court did not find that there was “intent to injure”. PH: Trial court found for D, the Bengals. Trial court found that Clark “acted out of anger and frustration, but without a specific intent to injure” p90¶3. Trial court ruled that the game of football is violent and that the sanctions available for these circumstances are provided through penalties and expulsion. 20.3 Issues Can an injury inflicted by a professional football player in a regular season game give rise to liability in tort when it arises from an intentional strike? 20.4 Decisions Appellate court reversed the trial court decision and ordered a new trial. They said that the trial court should have limited their scope to D’s liability. However, instead they determined that as a matter of social policy since football was violent that valid lines could not be drawn. Appellate court said this was not the proper issue. 20.5 Reasoning 20.6 Separate Opinions 20.7 Analysis Notes Are the elements of battery met? - Yes. - Trial court decided that there was consent because football is a tough, unpredictable sport. - Court of Appeals reverses the decision. Why? o If you engage in something that is inside the rules, it is not a battery o If you engage in something that is outside the rules, perhaps it could be battery - Hypothetical: o Philip Larson Page 40
Image of page 40
Torts I: Case Briefs 21. Mohr v. Williams (Privileges - Consent) 21.1 Title and Citation Mohr v. Williams, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905 p91 21.2 Facts P consulted D, an ear specialist about a problem with her right ear. She consented to an operation on her right ear. Her family doctor was present at her request. While under anesthesia, the doctor realized that the right ear did not need surgery but that the left ear did. He performed a successful operation. Nevertheless, P brought action against D for battery saying she did not consent to the operation. D claims: 1. Operation was consented to by P (express) and by her doctor who did not tell him to stop. 2. Act did not amount to assault and battery because it was a skillfully performed an operation that fixed a disease that threatened her health. Essentially, “absence of a showing that D was actuated by a wrongful intent, or guilty of negligence, relieves the act of D from the charge of unlawful assault and battery” p93¶2 PH: Trial court awarded P $14,322.50. Trial judge denied motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict but granted a new trial on the ground that the damages were excessive. Both parties appeal.
Image of page 41
Image of page 42

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 93 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture