Condon v Basi

Participants in a competitive contact sport owe one another a duty to take reasonable care in the circumstances of the sport. Their participation implies acceptance of its inherent risks, but does not remove the duty of care.

The question is whether the conduct causing injury was reasonable in the particular sporting context. The rules, conventions and customs of the game are relevant but are not conclusive. The standard is objective and may reflect the level at which the sport is played; it is not reduced by a player's incompetence. Serious and dangerous foul play which shows reckless disregard for another player's safety may therefore amount to negligence.

The claimant, playing for Whittle Wanderers in a local-league football match, sustained a broken leg when the defendant, playing for Khalsa Football Club, made a late sliding tackle with his studs raised.

His Honour Judge Wootton in the Warwick County Court found the defendant negligent and awarded damages of about £5,000. The defendant appealed, contending in particular that the relevant standard was subjective to his own ability as a footballer.

The central issue was the standard of care owed between players in a competitive contact sport and whether the judge had correctly found a breach on the facts.

1. Appeal dismissed unanimously. The Master of the Rolls, with whom Stephen Brown LJ and Glidewell J agreed, held that the county court judge had correctly found the defendant negligent.

2. A participant in sport may be taken to accept risks inherent in the activity. That implied acceptance does not eliminate every duty of care owed by one participant to another. The governing inquiry is whether the defendant exercised the degree of care reasonable in all the circumstances of the activity.

3. The rules, conventions and customs of the game are relevant evidence on reasonableness. They neither conclusively define the duty nor make every breach of a rule a breach of legal duty. The court preferred the formulation that applies the general reasonable-care standard in the particular circumstances of the sport, rather than treating consent as the primary analytical route.

4. The standard is objective, not a standard adjusted to the defendant's personal competence. It may nevertheless reflect the sporting setting, including the level at which the game is played.

5. The accepted findings described a late slide tackle made recklessly and dangerously, with raised studs, causing a broken leg. It was serious and dangerous foul play showing reckless disregard for the claimant's safety. It fell far below the standard reasonably expected of a player and constituted an obvious breach of duty.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, not to be enforced without the leave of the court.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the defendant's appeal from the Warwick County Court.
• Warwick County Court: His Honour Judge Wootton found the defendant negligent for the tackle and awarded the claimant damages of about £5,000.