Comments on: U.K.: Footballer sues over “negligent” tackle https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/10/uk-footballer-sues-over-negligent-tackle/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:30:01 +0000 hourly 1 By: bfs https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/10/uk-footballer-sues-over-negligent-tackle/comment-page-1/#comment-30171 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:30:01 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7618#comment-30171 Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals was in Prosser’s Tort casebook twenty years ago. This shouldn’t be much of a surprise.

]]> By: Antinome https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/10/uk-footballer-sues-over-negligent-tackle/comment-page-1/#comment-29878 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 16:25:47 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7618#comment-29878 Am I missing something? No one involved in the case even contested liability, the only question was the proper value of his future damages.

Its not clear what standard was applied, but if the rule is you are liable for an illegal hit that causes harm, I can’t see much wrong with that. Players in sports have an obligation not to violate the rules.

The analogy to a mountain is misplaced. Moutains have no agency, players of a game do.

]]> By: rogers turner https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/10/uk-footballer-sues-over-negligent-tackle/comment-page-1/#comment-29872 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 14:36:57 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7618#comment-29872 As a soccer and overall sports fan, this is certainly interesting. The concept of negligence and the duty you owe an opponent in a sporting event seems hard to define. Certainly if you intentionally try to injure someone that should be actionable. But admitting liability for a poor tackle (as the article says the other team did) seems odd. The speculative damages are the other huge problem with this. Every sport has “can’t miss” prospects that go nowhere…

]]>