Hart v. Geysel

Supreme Court of Washington · Torts

TortsConsentWrongful DeathMutual Combatconsentprize fightingmutual combatwrongful death

Facts

On February 5, 1929, Hamilton I. Cartwright and Cecil Geysel engaged in a prize fight in Seattle. During the fight, Cartwright received a blow that caused his death. The complaint alleged no facts showing that the combat was entered into in anger, that there was malicious intent to seriously injure, or that excessive force was used. The action was brought by Cartwright's administrator for wrongful death.

Issue

Can a wrongful death action be maintained where the decedent died from injuries received in an unlawful prize fight that both participants voluntarily and expressly consented to enter? More specifically, does the illegality of the prize fight prevent consent from barring civil recovery under these pleaded facts?

Rule

An administrator has no greater right to recover damages than the deceased would have had if he had lived. Where a person engages in prize fighting prohibited by positive law and expressly consents to the combat as a matter of business or sport, that person may not recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of the combat, at least where the complaint alleges no anger, malicious intent to seriously injure, or excessive force.

🔒

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.

In Portland, Oregon, Devin Cross and Mateo Silva agreed to participate in an underground boxing exhibition for ticket sales. During the bout, Mateo landed an ordinary punch within the agreed format, and Devin suffered a fractured cheekbone. Devin's complaint alleges only that the event was illegal and that the punch caused the injury.

Under the governing rule, is Devin most likely able to recover civil damages from Mateo?

Explanation. The majority opinion holds that one who engages in prize fighting prohibited by positive law and expressly consents to the combat as a matter of business or sport may not recover for injuries resulting from the combat, at least where no anger, malicious intent to seriously injure, or excessive force is alleged. The mere illegality of the bout does not by itself eliminate consent as a bar. (Derived from Hart v. Geysel (n.d.).)