Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.

Nature of the Case

This is an appeal for a denial of damages from a battery.

Facts

Hackbart (P) was a professional football player. He was intentionally injured by a member of an opposing team during the playing of a professional football game. At trial Charles Clark (D) admitted that the blow was not accidental and had been issued with intent. Clark had hit Hackbart in the back of his head and his neck. The rules of the game prohibit the striking of intentional blows not related to the play of the game.

The trial court found that Clark had hit Hackbart out of anger and frustration but not with an intent to injure him. The trial court ruled against Hackbart as a matter of law because the game itself was violent in nature and Hackbart had in effect consented to such conduct even though it was not part of the game. The court also found that the remedy for such conduct was provided for in the rules of the game. Hackbart appealed.

Issue

Does an intentional blow not authorized by the rules of the game by an opposing player during a professional sports game create liability under tort?

Holding and Rule of Law

Yes. An intentional blow not authorized by the rules of the game by an opposing player during a professional sports game creates tort liability.

The fact that a professional sport is violent does not determine whether a party has consented to an unauthorized blow. If the blow was unauthorized and intentional, there is liability. The intentional striking of such blows are clearly prohibited by the rules of this game. The rules of the game are intended to establish reasonable boundaries so that one player cannot intentionally inflict injury upon another.

We disagree with the trial court’s determination as a matter of law that the violent nature of the game along with the penalties of the game for such conduct meant that Hackbart had consented to such conduct.

Disposition

Reversed and remanded.