When the courts decided that a reckless and dangerous tackle went too far
What happened?
A man was playing football for a side in a local league.
According to the referee, he received possession of the ball, then when realising that he was about to be challenged for the ball by an opponent, pushed the ball away. As he did so, the opponent challenged by sliding in from three to four yards. The slide tackle came late, and was made in a reckless and dangerous manner, by lunging with his boot about nine inches off the ground.
As a result of the challenge, the man broke his right leg.
The man made a claim against the opponent.
Legal Outcome
The initial trial found that the opponent had been negligent and the man was awarded about £5,000. He appealed.
The appeal judge said ‘The tackle was made in a reckless and dangerous manner, not with malicious intent towards the man, but in an excitable manner without thought of the consequences’.
The question for the court was the standard of care expected of a football player. The standard of care varies according to the level of expertise the player has. The defendant was in breach of duty as the tackle was reckless even with regards the standard expected of a local league player. There will, of course, be a higher degree of care required of a player in a First Division football match than of a player in a Fourth Division football match.
What can we learn from what happened?
Playing sport carries risks, especially in sports where there is contact, such as football, and the conduct of the participants will significantly influence the level of exposure to these risks.
Participants who choose to play such sports voluntarily accept these risks, but as is often the case in law, it is a question of what is reasonable conduct and what is reckless or dangerous to the point of being ‘unlawful’. In football, fouls are committed on a regular basis. For a foul to be committed the referee will have determined that the laws of the game have been broken, but breaking these rules, does not imply unlawfulness. If this was the case, a claim would be made every time someone got hurt.
There is a point, however, when you can go too far. In this case study, that’s what the initial trial judge thought, as did the three appeal judges.
The judges also had to consider what level of conduct would be appropriate given the ability of the participants, and it is generally the case that the better the players, the higher the standard of care, ie the better control they should have.
This case, while rare, is a reminder that just because sports can be dangerous, and we voluntarily accept that we may get hurt, that does not excuse extreme conduct or behaviour that exposes participants to an unreasonable level of risk.
This is an interesting and complicated legal area in sport and leisure.
Source of Information
Casemine