Hi again probonopublico! and thanks for the question.
This question was surprisingly difficult to answer and has taken
several days of "quiet moments" to find the answer, however, an answer
we have!
Actual sporting actions are not covered by what we consider to be "the
law" if they were, boxing would be illegal as both opponents are
technically assulting each other. Individual professional sports are
self regulating in terms of what is and what is not acceptable (ie. a
footballer can be sent off for a foul, and thatīs the punishment
within the laws/rules of the game) However in cases where deliberate
injury is sustained above and beyond that which might be expected in
that particular sport then proceedings can be brought against the
assailant, and it will be up to the courts to decide on a case by case
basis whether or not there is a case to be answered.
There is also a duty on employers or those responsible for organising
sporting events to provide a 'safe' environment in which to practise
the sport. For example to provide first aid facilities, safe viewing
facilities for spectators etc..this is where the Health and Safety
legislation really comes into effect.
The key phrases here are "so far as is reasonably practicable" and
"duty of care"
"General duties of employers to their employees.
2. (1) It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is
reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all
his employees."
http://www.healthandsafety.co.uk/haswa.htm
"Thus, and perhaps most obviously, where a professional footballer
seeks damages arising from a bad tackle which has left him with
serious injury, his suit invariable provokes a debate as to whether or
not the law is an appropriate instrument for resolving (or even
permitting) such a claim."
http://www.devchambers.co.uk/old-site/sport.htm
"In general the perpetrator will only be held liable in negligence
when he or she goes outside the normal manner in which the sport is
practised. This may or may not mean outside the rules, so that the
risk of injury to fellow players is greater than fellow players would
normally expect"
http://www.iilondon.co.uk/pdf/ADeans17Jan01.pdf
"Interestingly the position of boxing has been considered by the
courts. In normal circumstances, boxing would be a deliberate assault
on someone and lead to a conviction. Indeed, even within the ring
boxers are technically deliberately assaulting each other. However,
the position within the law is historically clear. In the case of R
-v- CONEY (1882) 8 QBD 534 the validity of boxing was accepted. At the
time society was trying to outlaw prizefighting, so boxing was seen as
the lesser of two evils. Since then the place of boxing in sport has
been largely unchallenged. Despite the voices of concern nowadays, the
courts would be hard pushed to declare boxing illegal."
http://www.iilondon.co.uk/pdf/ADeans17Jan01.pdf
"In sporting circumstances the existence of a duty of care is not
often a difficult issue. It is generally accepted that such a duty
does exist between players, referees, spectators, promoters, owners,
organisers and so on. The more complex question is to address whether
that duty has been breached or not, looking at the status and
circumstances of the particular sport.
The duty of care is owed only to those people who are in the area of
foreseeable danger. The mere fact that you might be in breach of your
duty of care to another person does not enable that person injured as
a result to claim inevitably in negligence unless that person was also
within the area of foreseeable danger. This in fact seems to be the
fundamental point of perceived difficulty in sporting litigation."
http://www.iilondon.co.uk/pdf/ADeans17Jan01.pdf
Some of the cases cited make for amusing reading:
"Another recent case was that of COMER -v- GOVERNORS OF ST PATRICK'S
RC PRIMARY SCHOOL (1997) (Unreported), demonstrating how each case
still rests on its own facts. This matter went to the Court of Appeal.
Here the claimant was a father who had participated in the race for
fathers at his son's sports day. At the end of the race course was a
wall, which was clearly visible to all. In his enthusiasm to win the
race, the father did not manage to stop in time, having crossed the
finish line, and ran straight into the brick wall. In trying to stop
himself he broke both his arms."
http://www.iilondon.co.uk/pdf/ADeans17Jan01.pdf
But did he win? I wonder
-----------------------------------------------------
To answer your two questions specifically:
Q. How do their employers escape retribution?
A. They claim (usually succesfully in the eyes of the courts) that it
is a sport and that injury is to be expected.
Q. And should they?
A. Personally I think the system works pretty well. If footballers
(for example) went to court every time they thought they had been
tackled unfairly Paul Gascoigne would have spent more time in court
than he would on the pitch!
I think the current system works well where all the players agree to
play by the rules and accept the judgements of the referee.
Thank you for the question, and if you need any clarification, do not
hesitate to ask.
Best regards
THX1138 |
,
0 Comments
)