Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., US court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 1979 Can an injury inflicted by one football player on another during a football game by intentional striking give rise to a tort action? Issue Was there implied consent to the blow because of the violent nature of football? Does P assume the risk when he participated in a violent game? Did Clark act outside the reasonable boundaries of the game? Reasoning While it is true that the game is violent, Clark’s conduct is expressly prohibited by the rules of the game as indicated by Article I, Item 1, Subsection C of the rules and the testimony of all witnesses. It can not be accepted that Clarke was not liable and that P consented to rules violent nature of football since Clarke was acting outside the rules of the game. The court must determine whether P’s rights were violated. Rule Law appears to be: Players must act within the boundaries and rules of a game. Facts Charles Clark, a football player for D, struck the knelling P (a player for the Denver Broncos) from the back with his right forearm. The blow was so strong that it caused both of them to fall to the ground. Held Procedure P argues D argues Reversed and remanded for a new trial. Trial court looked at the wrong thing. They looked at the violent nature of Football as opposed to an assessment of P’s rights and whether they were violated. P brought a tort case against D. Court ruled that the game by its nature is violent. So no tort. Apparently P appeals. Hornbook – p 548. the duty of other participants is only a duty to avoid intentional and reckless injury. The limited duty approach makes it clear that even violation of the game does not in itself result in liability; If the violation is one that is ordinary to the way the dame is played, the defendant will be liable only if he is reckless or intends harm.