Condon v Basi
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1985 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Negligence - Duty of care to whom? - Competing sportsmen - Plaintiff and defendant playing in football match - Foul tackle by defendant injuring plaintiff - Whether duty of care owed to plaintiff
The plaintiff and the defendant were playing for opposing teams in a football match when the plaintiff suffered serious leg injuries as a result of a foul tackle by the defendant. On the plaintiff's claim for damages in negligence the judge held that there was an obvious breach of the defendant's duty of care because his conduct fell far below the standards which might reasonably be expected in anyone pursuing the game.
On appeal by the defendant:—
Held, dismissing the appeal, that players in competitive sports each owed a duty to the other to take all reasonable care in the particular circumstances in which they were placed; that, therefore, if one player injured another either because he had failed to exercise the degree of care which was appropriate in all the circumstances or because he had acted in a way to which the other player could not be expected to consent, he would be liable in negligence (post, p. 868B–E).
Per curiam. The standard of care in competitive sports is objective in differing sets of circumstances. A higher degree of care is required of a football player in a First Division football match than of a player in a local league football match (post, p. 868F–G).
The following cases are referred to in the judgment of Sir John Donaldson M.R.:
Donoghue v. Stevenson [
Rootes v. Shelton [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
McNamara v. Duncan [
Reg. v. Billinghurst [
APPEAL from Warwick County Court.
By writ dated 14 May 1981 the plaintiff, James Condon, claimed damages against the defendant, Gurdever Basi, alleging that he had suffered injuries caused by the defendant's negligence. The proceedings were transferred by consent from the High Court to the county court without limit of Jurisdiction. On 30 March 1984 the judge in the county court gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
By a notice of appeal dated 9 May 1984 and subsequently amended by leave of the Court of Appeal the defendant appealed on the grounds, inter alia, (1) that the judge made no finding at all in his judgment on the issue raised by the plea of consent to risk of injury in the defence and had the judge made a finding on that issue he would have found in favour of the defendant that, in all the circumstances, the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff and (2) that the judge wrongly held that for the defendant to be liable in negligence it was enough that he had been objectively reckless, namely, grossly negligent or very careless whether consciously taking a risk or not. The judge should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blake v Galloway
...judgment or lapse of skill, unless the participant's conduct is such as to evince a reckless disregard of the spectator's safety." 9 Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866 was a participant case. The plaintiff and the defendant were playing for opposing teams in a football match when the plainti......
- The State v Singh (Clement)
-
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd
...61 cf Cleghorn v Oldham (1927) 43 TLR 465; Quire v Coates [1964] SASR 294; McNamara v Duncan (1971) 26 ALR 584 at 587; Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866; [1985] 2 All ER 62 cf Agar (2000) 201 CLR 552 at 561–562 [15]; 600–601 [127]. 63Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 at 487–489, 493–494; Ro......
-
Caldwell v Maguire
...and not supported by the Court of Appeal authorities, which the judge considered. 14 The first of the most directly relevant of these is Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866, where a footballer sued an opponent who broke his leg with a foul tackle. Sir John Donaldson MR, with whom the other two m......
-
Arbitration By Battle
...contest does something which is not in accordance with the rules, there would seem to be a high threshold for liability. Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866 was one of a number of cases arising out of foul tackles in football matches. The court cited, with approval, an Australia decision that: "......
-
On-field Negligence in Sport: The English High Court rules in Czernuszka v King
...be applied by the Court to the facts in question. The Claimant asserted that the Court should adopt the test derived from Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866, namely that a Defendant has a duty “to exercise such degree of care as was appropriate in all the circumstances“. That case concerned a t......
-
A Different Ball Game—Why the Nature of Consent in Contact Sports Undermines a Unitary Approach
...appear to lie in negligence (the facts of Barnes are substantially the same asthose of the negligence case of Condon v Basi [1985] 2 All ER 453).102 [1990] 2 AC 605.103 As characterised in Lord Atkins’ famous ‘neighbour principle’ from Donoghue vStevenson [1932] AC 562.104 The test is objec......
-
Winner All Right? Liability in Tort For Injury in Sport
...ed., Cavendish Publishing, 2001), at 705. 6 Rootes v. Shelton 116 CLR 383; [1968] ALR 33 (HCA), (hereinafter Rootes) and Condon v. Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866; [1985] 2 All ER 453, being two examples in point. 2003] Liability in Tort for Injury in Sport rules. Imposing liability on sportsmen, it ......
-
Consent and the Rules of the Game: The Interplay of Civil and Criminal Liability for Sporting Injuries
...11 Exch 781. 10 A. L. Goodhart, ‘The Sportsman’s Charter’ (1962) 78 LQR 490.11 [1971] 1 WLR 668.12 Ibid. at 676.13 Ibid. at 670.14 [1985] 1 WLR 866.15 Ibid. at Consent and the Rules of the Game breach of the duty of care and would also have prevented any prospectof a consent defence succeed......
-
Straf- en delikregtelike aanspreeklikheid vir sportbeserings
...Kuhlmann 1975 Wisconsin LR 783. 159 BGH 5 Nov 1974, BGHZ 63 140; OLG Bremen Urt v 19/6/1953, NJW 1954 1364; Scheffen 1990 NJW 2659. 160 1985 1 WLR 866 (CA). 161 868: Van spelers in hoer ligas word 'n groter mate van sorgsaamheid as in minder belangrike wedstryde vereis. 162 OLG Hamm Urt v 2......