UC知道关于英美侵权法的一个问题。急救。。。。
来源：百度知道 编辑：UC知道 时间：2024/06/09 23:08:20
FACTS: Plaintiff Hackbart was a professional football player [defensive back] for the Broncos. During a game against the Cincinnati Bengals in 1973, a pass was intercepted and returned to mid-field. As a result of the interception, plaintiff Hackbart and co-defendant Clark switched roles with Hackbart playing offense and Clark now playing defense. Hackbart attempted to block Clark by throwing his body in front of him, then remaining on the ground.
It was found in the trial court that Clark, out of anger and frustrtion, [but without a specific intent to injure] struck a blow to the back of Hackbarts’s head and neck with his right forearm, while plaintiff was still kneeling. The blow was so severe that it caused both players to fall forward to the ground.
Since the referees did not observe the incident, a foul was not called. However, the game film clear
The rule of this case is: even if opposing player breached a duty owed by striking him, the football player assumed the risk of such injury due to the level of violence and the frequency of emotional outbursts in the league and, therefore, could not recover for injuries.
This authority is no longer a good law in Ferderal Court jurisdiction. In 601 F.2d 516, Court of Appeal reversed the trial decision and held no law prevented the application of tort concepts to football, plaintiff had right to have his tort claims adjudicated and evidence of plaintiff's prior football conduct was irrelevant to claims and improperly admitted. The Supreme Court of U.S. upheld the Appeal decision and the Certiorari was denied.
You had better read the relevant textbook more carefully.