Article- Tort Law Flashcards
(23 cards)
What is the main focus of the article?
The potential liability of rugby governing bodies in negligence for failing to protect players from neurodegenerative consequences of traumatic brain injury (TBI)
The article discusses claims from former rugby players suffering from conditions such as Motor Neurone Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.
Who are potential claimants in the discussed negligence claims?
Former rugby players with neurodegenerative diseases linked to head injuries incurred while playing rugby
Conditions mentioned include severe depression, Motor Neurone Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, Traumatic Encephalopathy Syndrome, and Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy.
What principle allows claimants to recover damages in negligence?
A failure of a defendant who owes a duty of care to take reasonable care
Established in Cleghorn v Oldham nearly 100 years ago.
Who can rugby players potentially claim against for TBI?
International and national governing bodies, employers, coaches, referees, and fellow players
Employers and governing bodies may be vicariously liable for their employees’ actions.
What is the Limitation Act, 1980 in relation to personal injury claims?
Requires claims to be initiated within 3 years of the injury
Exceptions exist for mental injury aspects and claims can be initiated beyond the 3-year period in certain circumstances.
What is a significant barrier to establishing a claim against rugby governing bodies?
Establishing a duty of care
Courts distinguish between acts causing harm and omissions failing to confer a benefit.
What does the author suggest regarding the assumption of responsibility by rugby governing bodies?
Governing bodies may have assumed responsibility through reliance, taking on a task, or their role
They control the conduct of matches and set safety standards.
What case does the author reference to support the existence of a duty of care?
Watson case
The British Boxing Board was held liable for not providing medical care ringside.
What are the challenges in proving breach of duty by governing bodies?
Establishing failure to exercise appropriate care and balancing public benefit with safety measures
The essence of sports requires physical contact, complicating the implementation of strict safety rules.
What is the ‘but-for’ test in relation to causation?
A standard to determine if the injury would have occurred but for the defendant’s actions
It is a challenge in proving factual causation for long-term TBI cases.
How might claimants argue causation in TBI cases?
By showing cumulative causes that included repeated exposure to TBIs
They may argue that the governing bodies’ omissions materially contributed to the damage.
What is one possible defense that could be raised by defendants in these cases?
The defense of voluntary assumption of risk by players
Players may have consented to the known risks inherent in the sport.
What role does scientific evidence play in establishing causation?
It helps to show a clear connection between injuries and negligence
Statistical evidence may be used if scientific evidence is lacking.
What is the significance of the Compensation Act in breach analysis?
Judges must consider the public benefit of sports activities in their analysis
This may affect how strict liability is applied in sports.
What complicates the establishment of breach in negligence claims?
The inherent nature of physical injury as part of the sport and the players’ consent to risk
Research findings on the links between rugby and TBI are often inconclusive.
What is the potential impact of the Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd case on rugby claims?
It allows for a material increase in risk argument if causation cannot be proven under traditional tests
This exception is typically used in cases related to mesothelioma.
What is the primary focus of rugby governing bodies concerning player safety?
Providing guidance and enacting safety rules
Their failure to do so may be seen as a negligent omission.
What is the alternative plea regarding the but-for test in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd?
To argue that there was a material increase in risk of injury during the player’s career without proving cumulative injuries
This argument is limited as courts are reluctant to allow this exception outside mesothelioma cases.
What does the defense of volunti non fit injuria entail?
The player accepts the risks associated with playing rugby voluntarily
This defense has become narrower, especially in sports cases.
Can players consent to negligent acts in sports cases?
No, players cannot consent to negligent acts
Referenced case: Watson.
What issues must be overcome for the defense of volunti non fit injuria to be successful?
Duty, breach, and causation issues
If these issues are addressed, the defense is generally not successful.
Is it likely that damages awarded to a claimant would be reduced due to contributory negligence if they played on after a TBI?
No, it is unlikely that damages would be reduced
Courts may consider the impacts on voluntariness and information in the heat and adrenaline of the moment.
What factors influence the court’s decision on reducing damages in cases involving TBI?
Impacts on voluntariness and information at the moment of decision
Particularly relevant if the claimant was subject to a TBI when deciding to play on.
