Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. 1. Case Name: Hackbart (P) v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. (D) (p. 93) 2. Court & Date: United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1979 3. Procedural History: (p. 93) The trial court ruled as a matter of law that football as a sport is violent in nature and there are sanctions available during the course of the game in the form of penalties and expulsion from the game to address rule violations. The plaintiff, Hackbart, appealed the trial court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 4. Questions Presented: (p. 93) Whether an injury which is inflicted by one professional football player on an opposing player can give rise to liability in tort where the injury was inflicted by the intentional striking of a blow during the game. 5. Trigger Facts: (pp. 94) In a game between the Cincinnati Bengals, the defendant, and the Denver Broncos, Charles Clark, a player for the Bengals, intentionally struck Dale Hackbart, a Broncos player and the plaintiff, on the back of the head and neck during the course of the game. The rules of football provided that: ‘‘All players are prohibited from striking on the head, face or neck with the heel, back or side of the hand, wrist, forearm, elbow or clasped hands.’’ Clark admitted that he was acting out of frustration because his team was losing. Hackbart sued the Cincinnati Bengals for damages. 6. Plaintiff’s Argument: (pp. 94-95) Hackbart, the plaintiff, argued that Charles Clark exceeded the scope of the rules of football by intentionally striking him on the back of the head and neck during a football game. 7. Defendant’s Argument: (pp. 94-95) The Cincinnati Bengals, the defendant, argued that the actions of its player, Charles Clark, cannot be the basis of an intentional tort because the game of football is inherently a dangerous and violent activity and, as a result, Hackbart, the plaintiff, consent to all injuries suffered during the course of the game. 8. Rule: (pp. 94-95) Despite the violent nature of football, all reason is not abandoned during the course of the game. While players consent to some activity, they do not consent to all conduct and injuries sustained during the game. 9. Reasoning: (pp. 94-95) Despite the violent nature of football, all reason is not abandoned during the course of the game. The rules and customs of the game do not allow players to intentionally punch or strike other players in the manner in which the Clark struck the plaintiff, Hackbart. These rules establish reasonable boundaries to prevent one player from intentionally injuring another player. Clark exceeded these boundaries by intentionally striking the Hackbart on the back of the head and neck during a football game. Therefore, the appellate court determined that it was improper for the lower court to determine as a matter of law that, due to the violent nature of football, the Bengals are not liable for Clark’s actions. 10. Holding: (pp. 94-95) An injury which is inflicted by one professional football player on an opposing player can give rise to liability in tort where the injury was inflicted by the intentional striking of a blow during the game. 11. Main Takeaway: The plaintiff’s consent is a valid defense to an otherwise valid intentional tort claim against the defendant. However, if the defendant exceed the score of that consent, then the plaintiff consent is not valid, and the defendant can be found liable. 12. Other Notes: (p. 95, Note 1) A plaintiff must show that the defendant’s act was intentional, not just that it violated the game’s safety rules.