Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1979 · Torts

TortsrecklessnessRestatement Second of Torts section 500sports injuriesprofessional footballintentional blowrules of the gamecustom of the game

Facts

During a 1973 Denver Broncos-Cincinnati Bengals game, after an interception changed possession, Dale Hackbart was on one knee watching the play when Charles Clark stepped forward and struck him with his right forearm in the back of the head and neck. The trial court found Clark acted out of anger and frustration and intentionally delivered the blow, though without specific intent to injure. The officials did not see the incident, but the game film clearly showed it; Hackbart later learned he had suffered a serious neck fracture. The evidence uniformly showed that intentionally striking a player in the head from the rear was not accepted by either the written rules or the general customs of professional football.

Issue

May a professional football player pursue a tort claim for an injury intentionally inflicted by an opposing player during a regular season game, or may a court refuse to apply tort principles on the ground that football is inherently violent? If tort law applies, may the plaintiff proceed under a theory of reckless disregard under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500 rather than assault and battery?

Rule

A court may not refuse to entertain a tort claim merely because the injury occurred during a professional football game. Where the challenged conduct is prohibited by the rules and customs of the game, and the actor intentionally commits the act without necessarily intending the resulting serious harm, liability may be analyzed under reckless disregard for the rights of others as defined in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500; if proved, such a claim is governed by Colorado's six-year tort limitations period rather than the one-year period for assault and battery.

🔒

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 professional hockey game in St. Louis, Owen Pike intentionally swings his stick at Raul Mendes after the whistle, striking Raul in the side of the head. League rules and testimony from coaches establish that this kind of retaliatory stick swing is forbidden and outside the sport's accepted customs. Raul files a diversity tort action in federal court in Missouri.

If the district judge believes professional hockey is too violent for courts to draw workable liability lines and dismisses on that policy ground alone, what is the best evaluation?

Explanation. The majority held that a federal court may not decline to entertain a tort suit merely because the injury arose during a violent professional sport. If jurisdiction exists, the court must exercise it and apply forum state law rather than invent a policy-based immunity for sports violence. The key point is that the sport itself is not placed beyond ordinary legal redress simply because it is rough.