Quick Tip: Football Season, Consent, and the Law

As the Cincinnati Bengals take on the New England Patriots in their season opener this Sunday, it only seems fitting to visit a landmark case in sports law: Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1979). This case serves as a cornerstone when discussing the defense of consent in personal injury cases, particularly in the context of contact sports like football.

In 1973, during a game between the Denver Broncos and the Cincinnati Bengals, Dale Hackbart, a Broncos defensive back, was struck in the neck by Bengals running back Charles Clark after a play had ended. Hackbart suffered a serious injury, but no penalty was called on the field. Rather than viewing this incident as part of the game’s inherent risks, Hackbart decided to sue the Bengals and Clark for damages, arguing that Clark’s actions were intentional and went beyond the scope of the game.

The key issue was whether Hackbart had consented to such contact simply by participating in professional football, where hard physical contact is an accepted part of the game. The defense of consent is a powerful shield in tort law, particularly in the context of sports, where participants often agree (implicitly or explicitly) to certain risks inherent to the activity.

The court held that while football is a violent sport, participants do not consent to conduct that is outside the rules of the game. In Hackbart, the injury occurred after the play had ended, and the court determined that Hackbart had not consented to this type of behavior. The ruling was significant because it recognized that there are limits to what players consent to in football. The court remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings, acknowledging that intentional injuries beyond the rules are actionable.

Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals is a great example of how courts interpret the limits of consent in the sports context. While players accept a certain level of risk when they step onto the field, that consent is not unlimited. Players don't waive their rights to safety just because they're engaged in a contact sport. There are still boundaries, and when those boundaries are crossed, the law can hold the offender accountable.

This case remains relevant every football season, reminding us that while some aggression is expected on the gridiron, there's still a line that shouldn't be crossed. As you watch the Bengals and Patriots this weekend, keep in mind that the defense of consent in tort law isn't quite as wide as a football field.