Edition 01/2001
IEA is pleased to present the January 2001 edition of the IEA
Sport Monthly Update. This
monthly publication will address topical issues specific to the
management of sport. For
free subscription to this newsletter please join our mailing list
(refer home page of website, www.ieasport.com.au).
The newsletter will be delivered via Email only.
We welcome questions from subscribers which will be
addressed in future editions of the Monthly Update.
Recent
Legal Decisions Encouraging For Sport
Many
sports administrators will be aware of the decision handed down by the
High Court of Australia on 3rd August 2000 in the case of Agar v
Hyde [2000] 41. This decision received some media exposure
at the time and the Spring 2000 edition of IEA's Safer Sports
newsletter contained an article that outlined the ruling.
In
summary, this appeal against a NSW Court of Appeal decision in October
1998 raised the question as to whether a member of the board of a
voluntary sporting association, which has the capacity to make and
alter the rules of a sporting contest, is under a legal duty of care
to players in relation to the risk of injury. The case concerned
two rugby players injured in the course of a scrum and the resultant
action against the International Rugby Board (IRB). The High
Court overturned the 1998 decision by the NSW Court of Appeal to allow
the players to sue the IRB for damages.
|
|
Since
the Agar v Hyde decision, two courts of appeal have rejected
negligence actions brought in the context of inherently risky sport
and recreation activities, thereby giving sports administrators
further reason to rest a little easier.
A
Judgement handed down by the NSW Court of Appeal on 16th August 2000
set aside Judgements made against a baseballer and the baseball league
for an on field incident which occurred in November 1994. The
appeal case was Insurance Exchange v Dooley [2000] NSWCA 159,
and it related to an incident where Eisenhuth, a member of the
fielding team, was injured as he obstructed Dooley attempting to run
for second base and a collision resulted. Eisenhuth sued
Dooley, as first defendant, and the league that controlled the
baseball competition, claiming damages for negligence. In
the 1996 decision the trial judge held that Dooley and the league were
each liable but were entitled to be indemnified by the third party
insurer. The insurer appealed the decision.
The
court unanimously overturned the trial judge's decision. The
rules of baseball declared that the runner (Dooley) had right of way
and found that the collision between the two players was either within
the rules of the game or was the result of a commonly encountered
infringement. The infringement in this instance was by the
plaintiff fielder Eisenhuth. The runner Dooley, although it was
possible he could have avoided the collision, had no intention to hurt
the fielder.
....Continued page 2
|
