Key Facts
- •Amateur rugby match collision between Claimant (Mr. Elbanna) and Defendant (Mr. Clark).
- •Claimant suffered serious spinal injury.
- •Defendant admitted causing the injury but denied liability.
- •Incident captured on video recording.
- •Both parties presented expert evidence on rugby laws and interpretation of the video.
- •The collision occurred during a restart, with the Defendant running at speed towards the Claimant who was facing away.
- •The Defendant did not attempt to avoid the collision despite having the opportunity.
- •Claimant's club cited the Defendant for foul play, but the appeal was dismissed.
Legal Principles
In sporting contests, the negligence test is whether the defendant failed to exercise the appropriate degree of care in the circumstances.
Czernuszka v King [2023] EWHC 380 (KB), as summarised by Martin Spencer J.
Infringement of the rules of the game is one consideration, but not the sole determinant, in assessing reasonableness of conduct.
Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866, citing Kitto J in Rootes v Shelton.
Law 10.4(f) of the Rugby Football Union laws: Except in a scrum, ruck or maul a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.
World Rugby Laws of the Game
Outcomes
Liability found against the Defendant.
The Defendant's actions were reckless, amounting to playing an opponent without the ball in contravention of the laws, and courting the risk of injury. The collision was avoidable or could have been mitigated to a soft contact.