mopgoblin on 28/9/2006 at 22:04
Quote Posted by Starrfall
Yep. A football player doesn't really have a battery case if he gets a broken leg as a result of a perfectly normal tackle. Likewise, a boxer doesn't really have a battery case if he gets a broken nose in a run of the mill boxing match.
Wouldn't the defence in both of those cases be something like "I genuinely believed he knew the risks and gave consent", though? The player/boxer who caused the injury generally wouldn't have any reason to believe that an opponent of comparable experience didn't give consent or wasn't properly informed, being (presumably) similarly informed of the risks themselves. I dont think it's unreasonable to expect the coach (or the other players, in a friendly game/match) to be responsible for informing someone new to the sport of the risks involved.
I guess I didn't quite say what I actually meant, which was more about intent, i.e. "the victim should have known that I/someone was going to try to do that". Breaking the opponent's leg isn't the desired outcome of a normal tackle, and breaking the opponent's nose isn't the desired outcome of a boxing match, even though they are possible consequences.
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Under that logic ("surely that is all moot") any contract would be rendered invalid simply by saying something to the contrary while, or before, you're signing it.
Not necessarily. That reasoning need not apply to the general case, because we're talking about contracts that involve letting someone try to beat you up, and I expect you can't sign away your abiility to revoke (or alter the scope of) your consent to a pummelling that hasn't occurred yet. And once you tell someone "I'm not actually going to hit you very hard", you can't reasonably assume they're still consenting to a real boxing match.
Rug Burn Junky on 28/9/2006 at 22:14
Haven't you fuckers learned not to mess with me when it comes to the legal shit?
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Hit'em with the Four Corners and Parol Evidence Rules next
oudeis on 28/9/2006 at 22:23
I had to wonder that myself.
Starrfall on 28/9/2006 at 23:03
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
I guess I didn't quite say what I actually meant, which was more about intent, i.e. "the victim should have known that I/someone was going to try to do that". Breaking the opponent's leg isn't the desired outcome of a normal tackle, and breaking the opponent's nose isn't the desired outcome of a boxing match, even though they are possible consequences.
But if I intend to punch you, and you consent, you effectively consent to any injury the punch causes. If you consent to box, you consent to the consequences of boxing.
ps four corners says that if you've got a contract you only look at what it actually says but we haven't done evidence yet so don't ask me about that
Scots Taffer on 28/9/2006 at 23:41
Quote Posted by mopgoblin
Breaking the opponent's leg isn't the desired outcome of a normal tackle, and breaking the opponent's nose isn't the desired outcome of a boxing match, even though they are possible consequences.
Yeah, and how often do you hear of an injured footballer pressing charges against the tackling footballer?
Never, because they accept the risks and pitfalls of playing professional football, and they've probably signed a contract to that effect.
Kinda shot yourself in the foot with that example, mop. In either case, signing the contract and entering the ring with Boll was where my amusement at Lowtax entered the equation - I mean, who the fuck is that stupid? Other than him, obviously.
SD on 28/9/2006 at 23:54
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
Yeah, and how often do you hear of an injured footballer pressing charges against the tackling footballer?
Never, because they accept the risks and pitfalls of playing professional football.
You might not hear about it, but that doesn't mean it never happens:
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/201624.stm) A first division footballer has won his claim for negligence against another player after a tackle which broke his leg. The High Court, sitting in Leeds, decided that Huddersfield Town defender Kevin Gray was liable for a sliding tackle which put Bradford City striker Gordon Watson out of action for 18 months.
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/reading/3628887.stm) Former Reading defender Chris Casper has secured undisclosed damages in an out-of-court settlement over the tackle which ended his playing career.
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3514673.stm) Former Charlton midfielder Matthew Holmes has been awarded agreed damages of £250,000 at the High Court for a tackle by defender Kevin Muscat.
Scots Taffer on 29/9/2006 at 00:07
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
You might not hear about it, but that doesn't mean it never happens:
Fair enough, not "never" but just scanning those, they didn't appear to be just "bad tackles" but practically crippling and severely debilitating. My point was that a player who gets into a rough tumble after a tackle doesn't storm off the pitch and sue, they know what they're getting into - same for these guys, they signed consent to get boxed around a ring by a playground bully slimebag, just because they didn't think it was going to happen just makes them bigger idiots.
Starrfall on 29/9/2006 at 00:16
What do they mean by "challenge"?
If someone is playing a sport and is injured by conduct not within the scope/rules/boundries of the game, it's doesn't really fall under the normal risks of the game, so it's not surprising that they'd be able to recover.
To extreme it up a bit, a fair tackle that results in a broken leg probably isn't actionable. But if a goalie fairly has his hands on the ball and another player runs up and tackles him out of anger and as a result the goalie breaks a leg, it probably is.
I'm not really comfortable with soccer examples though. How about this: if a batter in a baseball drills a line drive into the pitcher's head, probably not actionable. But if he charges the mound and breaks the pitchers hand with his bat, probably is.
Paz on 29/9/2006 at 00:30
"Challenge" is pretty interchangeable with "tackle". It just means challenging for the ball - ie, making some kind of attempt to get it from the other side. It doesn't carry any positive or negative connotations.
As far as I understand it, the football/soccer incidents only develop into lawsuits when the tackle involved has been extremely malicious or horrific. Something above and beyond the usual, and certainly not just "oops, I mistimed my slide and collided with your ankle". I assume some kind of "intent to injure" has to be proved ... although I'm not entirely sure how you'd go about that.
Occasionally, questions are asked (in a general kind of way) about whether particularly bad incidents could be considered for actual assault charges of some kind, but I think this is a pretty dangerous place for the sport to consider going (short of completely outlandish situations like a footballer going nuts and taking a knife to someone on the pitch - like the baseball example above).
Sometimes club sides make noises about suing international teams/football associations if their players get injured while playing/training for their country too, but that also seems unwise for the future of the game (unless it can be shown that the international manager was forcing the player to train by swimming with some sharks and dancing on a bed of nails).
Definitely an interesting area, though.
Throw in the various forms of insurance which both the domestic clubs and international football associations take out on their players and you've got some fun, fun legal shenanigans waiting to happen!
Mingan on 29/9/2006 at 04:29
I remember one occasion when a hockey player was charged and found guilty of armed assault after giving an ugly cross-checking to the head, causing a severe concussion. The case was heard mostly because the cross-checking was during a time-out. And they had to prove that it was aimed for the head, with intent to injure.
I think that was pretty much a run-of-the-mill assault charge, though many sports journalists argued whether it was good to bring the case to justice, like Paz said, but I think that things like that must go down with a 'you're doing a sport, you know the dangers'; even in boxing you're not out there to kill your opponent.
0.02$ added.
