Key Facts
- •On 8 October 2017, the Claimant, a novice rugby player, suffered a spinal injury leaving her paraplegic after a tackle by the Defendant.
- •The Defendant was a more experienced player and captain of her team.
- •The game was a developmental league match, meaning many players were inexperienced.
- •The Defendant's tackling style was described as dominant and aggressive, leading to several incidents of rough play in the game.
- •The Defendant made a tackle on the Claimant while she was bent over, picking up the ball from a ruck, leaving her in a vulnerable position.
- •The tackle resulted in the Claimant's severe spinal injury.
- •Expert witnesses, experienced rugby referees, provided conflicting opinions on whether the tackle was legal or negligent.
Legal Principles
In sporting events, participants owe a duty of care to avoid causing injury through reckless conduct or a very high degree of carelessness.
Wooldridge v Sumner [1963] 2 QB 43, Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866, Blake v Galloway [2004] 1 WLR 2844
The standard of care in sports is objective but modified by the circumstances of the game; a higher standard is expected in professional matches than in developmental league matches.
Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866
Breach of the rules of a sport does not automatically equate to negligence; the court assesses whether the conduct fell below the standard of care appropriate in all the circumstances.
Caldwell v Maguire [2001] EWCA Civ 1054, Smoldon v Whitworth (1997) ELR 249
Outcomes
Judgment for the Claimant.
The Defendant's tackle was deemed reckless and demonstrated a disregard for the Claimant's safety, falling below the standard of care expected in the circumstances. The Defendant's actions were viewed as retaliatory and not a mere error of judgment.