Negligence In Sports

Duty of Care: best interest; defensible decision making; contextualising behaviour; identification of positive and negative risks

We all have a duty of care to everyone we come into contact with or have an effect on, this responsibility increases as we take on more responsible roles such as being a coach. Duty of Care is a legal commitment to being responsible.

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

Thus, wilful and wanton or reckless conduct allows the court to gauge what is and is not permissible conduct under the circumstances. Second, as the court recognized in Nabozny, courts must strike a balance between "the free and vigorous participation in sports" and the protection of the individual from reckless or intentional conduct. (Nabozny, 31 Ill.App.3d at 215, 334 N.E.2d 258.) Third, the court believed that applying an ordinary negligence standard would allow virtually every participant in a contact sport, injured by another during a "warm-up" or practice, to bring an action based on the risks inherent in virtually every contact

It was called “Acceptance,” a story about a father whose alcoholism kills his son, an All-American football star. A second chance is then offered in the form of two new sons, one homosexual and the other intellectually disabled. As far as the outcome, you would have to “…wait for the movie”. The outlandish story Rae Carruth imagined would never reach the big screen, instead his own life would far eclipse the scenario he created when he chose to have his eight-month pregnant girlfriend and unborn baby murdered instead of paying child support. Part of his plan did work, Cherica Adams did die, but not before calling 911, identifying Carruth, and also giving birth to their son, who survived. It was a shocking crime that would make headlines,

The case study selected for week three centers on a liability and assumption of risk case study. In this case study, Brent Thomas and George Banks are facing liability charges after Ricky Watts sustained a serious injury during hockey practice (Essex, 2016). In this situation, Thomas is the school principal, and Banks is the hockey coach as well as the gym teacher (Essex, 2016). Ricky obtained injuries after improperly blocking the puck (Essex, 2016). This case study was selected because it highlights a situation that will likely be faced by all future school leaders. Sports are popular among students, and there is inherent risk in each sporting event. A school is open to liability if they do not ensure that proper protocols are met.

According to APES 110, “to maintain professional knowledge and skill at the level required to ensure that a client or employer receives competent Professional Services based on current developments in practice, legislation and techniques and act diligently and in accordance with applicable technical and professional standards” is the definition of professional competence and due care. Management did not exercise adequate due care for their players when faced with these conditions. The informal nature of Dr Stephen Dank’s employment intensified this negligence as he was passed the duty of care of these players although he did not hold accountable to the club. Therefore those who involved Dr Stephen Dank bypassed the Human Resources procedures showing complete disregarded of the due care principle.

ss. At the time, nobody knew anything about concussions and what they can do to a person. It wasn’t until about 1994 when the NFL started too research brain injuries. Since then, the NFL has been pushing concussion protocol. Teams must follow protocol to the period and they don’t, they will be fined.

P2 - Describing the the legal factors and regulatory bodies that influence health and safety in sport. Introducton In this assignment I will describe the legal factors and regulatory bodies that influence health and saftey in sport the factors i’ll be describing are: • Satutory Law • Civil Law • Case Law The codes of practice for these factors are: • In Loco Parentis • Duty of Care • Higher Duty of Care • Negliyence • Regulaority bodies Statutory Law Statutory law is in place for everyone such as, teachers/instructors, other employers and students.

However, it is the leagues duty to care for its athletes. The assumption of risk could also become a defense for the league. The NFL players knew that football presented risks to their safety. Football is a contact sport and several risk factors are involved in the game (Hanna, 2010).

Plaintiff Gayle Payne (“Ms. Payne”) brought a class action complaint against Rob Manfred, the Commissioner of MLB (“Commissioner”), the office of the commissioner (“MLB”), and all 30 Major League Baseball member teams, alleging the defendants’ failure and inaction in providing reasonable safety measures to protect game-goers from risk of serious injury while attending games. On behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Ms. Payne sought “class-wide injunctive or equitable relief in the form of changes to current MLB rules and practices with respect to protective netting in MLB ballparks” (Gail Payne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (MLB), 2015). She filed this negligence suit in hopes of remediating the possibility of frequent injuries at baseball stadiums.

Over the past decade, the increase in participation from recreational sporting activities to organized has increased significantly (Taniguchi, 2003). With more individuals taking part, the amount of injuries has escalated and the amount of negligent lawsuits soon followed. The courts have had to acclimate themselves and look at sporting injuries through the lens of tort law (Harvard Law Review, 2008). The landmark case in the state of California, Knight v. Jewett, the state supreme court upheld the original ruling that participants who knowingly cause injury to another contestant outside of the normal rules of conduct while participating in a sporting activity, are liable or negligent, changed the course how courts would rule in tort cases (Harvard Law Review, 2008). Hence, tort law is now a leading point of discussion in athletic and physical education departments in our local school districts (Taniguchi, 2003). Included in the discussion is intentional tort, when a player injuries another participant purposely (Wolohan, 2013). For intentional tort to be ruled on, three essentials must be present: 1.an injury must have occurred, 2. the cause of injury is due to a negligent act, 3. the act that caused the injury must be intentional (Wolohan, 2013). Thus, the merging of recreational activities, extreme sports, and physical education programs, intentional tort law will be looked at in the school setting.

These three incidents of sports illustrates that injuries can be unpleasant in any sports given and athletes have great amount of risks while they continue their game in the field, in order to amuse their viewers (Bird 91). Apart from the examples mentioned above, there are several small and large accidents that have occurred in the past and they have made the life of sportsmen bitter and even their future uncertain, with respect to their ability to work.

Torts of negligence are breaches of duty that results to injury to another person to whom the duty breached is owed. Like all other torts, the requirements for this are duty, breach of duty by the defendant, causation and injury(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). However, this form of tort differs from intentional tort as regards the manner the duty is breached. In torts of negligence, duties are breached by negligence and not by intent. Negligence is conduct that falls below the standard of care established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm(Stuhmcke and Corporation.E 2001). The standard measure of negligence is the universal reasonable person standard. The assumption in this case is that a reasonable

The main idea of the law of negligence is to ensure that people exercise reasonable care when they act by measuring the potential harm that may foreseeably cause harm to other people. Negligence is the principal trigger for liability to ascend in matters that deal with the loss of property of personal injury. Therefore, a person cannot be liable for something unless they have been found negligent or have contributed to the loss of property or injury to the plaintiff (Stuhmcke, 2005). There is more to