Civil Liability in Sports Injury Cases

Civil Liability in Sports Injury Cases

June 6, 2022, Covington Alert

In Fulham Football Club v Jones [2022] EWHC 1108 (QB), the English High Court set out important guidance on the legal principles to be applied when determining civil liability for serious injuries that occur in professional sports matches.

Background

The original claim, brought by Mr Jordan Jones, related to a tackle made by Mr Jayden Harris during a football match between the under 18 teams of Fulham Football Club (Mr Harris’s team) and  Swansea City Football Club. The tackle, which was captured on video, involved Mr Harris sliding in from the side of Mr Jones, who was in possession of the ball. Mr Harris’s right foot made contact with the ball first, before both of his feet came into contact with Mr Jones. The FA-accredited referee had full view of the tackle and did not award a foul, instead allowing play to continue. Mr Jones alleged that, as a result of the tackle, he suffered a career-ending injury and that the tackle amounted to assault and/or was negligent. Mr Jones issued proceedings against Fulham alleging that the club, as Mr Harris’ employer, was vicariously liable for Mr Harris’ actions.

The first instance judge found that Mr Harris had no wilful or malicious intent in making the tackle and therefore dismissed the assault claim. However, the judge found that the tackle was negligent on the basis that it was “a serious error of judgment to make the tackle in the way that [Mr Harris] did, going beyond the kind of mis-judgments, mis-timings and relatively minor or momentary lack of care which all players have to accept as an inherent risk of the game not amounting to negligence.” In reaching his decision, the judge also took account of Mr Harris’ large size and his uncertainty, in making the tackle, as to the likely outcome of the challenge. Fulham appealed the first instance decision, principally on the basis that the judge had wrongly lowered the legal standard for establishing civil liability in the context of a professional football match.    

Key Outcomes

The High Court accepted Fulham’s appeal and set out important guidance on claims that arise as a result of serious sporting injuries, including the following:

• The standard for establishing civil liability for a sporting injury is materially higher than for a mere breach of the rules of the game in question. The appeal judge, Lane J, held that the first instance judge had closely aligned “serious foul play” under the Rules of the Game of Association Football with actionable negligence, and thereby wrongly reduced the ambit of inquiry required to determine whether Mr Harris’ tackle was negligent.
• Uncertainty about whether or not a tackle would harm another player is insufficient to establish negligence in sports injury cases. Lane J noted that this would set far too low a standard for reckless or quasi-reckless behaviour in the context of professional football.
• When determining the merits of a negligence claim in the context of sports injuries, it is critical for the Court to have regard to the context and realities of the relevant sport. For example, football—particularly at the professional level—is a fast-moving and highly competitive game, and the first instance judge had erred in failing to take this context into account.
• Courts must also take into account the decisions of any professionally qualified referee who was present to adjudicate on the game in question (which the first instance judge failed to do).Lane J held that whilst the decisions of such officials are not determinative, they should, for policy reasons, nevertheless be considered by the Court in evaluating whether actionable negligence has occurred.
• Finally, as a general judicial issue, a judge must be guided by expert evidence and cannot simply dismiss such evidence because it does not align with the judge’s independently-formed conclusion. The first instance judge had failed to explain why he had preferred the opinion evidence of one expert (Mr Jones’) over another (Fulham’s), and Lane J held that the first instance judge’s rejection of Fulham’s expert evidence was legally flawed.

Conclusion

This case is a reminder of the high bar for establishing civil liability for serious injuries sustained in the course of professional sports matches. Such claims may increase in the coming years, and parties—including those against whom vicarious liability is alleged—will need to consider carefully the Fulham Football Club v Jones decision when bringing or defending such claims.

If you have any questions concerning the material discussed in this client alert, please contact the members of our Dispute Resolution and Sports practices.