Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals

United States District Court for the District of Colorado · 1979 · Torts

Tortssports injuriesassumption of riskprofessional footballassumption of riskprofessional sportsNFLreckless misconduct

Facts

During a 1973 NFL game between the Denver Broncos and the Cincinnati Bengals, Dale Hackbart, a Broncos player, fell in the end zone after the play reversed direction and then remained kneeling while watching the play continue upfield. Acting out of anger and frustration, but without specific intent to injure, Bengals player Charles Clark struck Hackbart in the back of the head with his forearm, causing both players to fall. No official saw the play, no foul was called, and Hackbart did not report it during the game; he later learned he had suffered a neck injury. The evidence showed that NFL football involved frequent rule violations, common emotional flare-ups, and a level of violence such that incidents like this were not unexpected.

Issue

May a professional football player recover in tort from an opposing player and that player's team for a blow delivered during a league-approved game where the act occurred in the course of regular play, was emotionally motivated, and the injured player had accepted the risks inherent in NFL competition? More specifically, did Clark's conduct create liability under theories of recklessness, negligence, contract, outrageous conduct, or interference with contract?

Rule

In the context of professional NFL football, where violence, frequent rule violations, and emotional outbursts are expectable incidents of the game, an adult contract player assumes the risk of injury from such conduct, even if the opposing player may have breached a duty. On the facts before the court, civil tort principles should not be used to allocate fault for an emotional, unarmed blow delivered without specific intent to injure during regular play in a league-approved professional game.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a league-approved professional football game in Houston, veteran safety Marcus Bell is jogging back after an interception when opposing fullback Evan Cole, frustrated by the turnover, gives Bell a late forearm shove to the back after the play has moved away. Officials do not see it, no penalty is called, and evidence at trial shows that emotional flare-ups and undetected fouls are common in that league.

If Bell sues Cole in tort for his injuries, what is the strongest result under the majority's reasoning?

Explanation. The majority held that, in NFL-style professional football, the relevant question is what a player in the plaintiff's circumstances would reasonably expect to encounter. Because violence, emotional outbursts, penalties, and missed fouls are expectable incidents of the game, an adult contract player assumes the risk of injury from an unarmed blow delivered emotionally and without specific intent to injure during regular play. The lack of a called foul does not defeat that defense, and no express consent to the specific act is required.