Dani Laura Chelsea Czernuszka (nee Watts) v Natasha Mercedes King

In negligence claims arising from sporting injuries, the governing question is whether the defendant failed to exercise the degree of care appropriate in all the circumstances. The rules and conventions of the sport are relevant, but breach of those rules does not itself establish civil liability. Conversely, a tackle may be actionable even where it is lawful under the sport’s rules.

The heightened requirement of recklessness or a very high degree of carelessness applies only where the circumstances of the particular activity justify it, such as informal horseplay. It is not a universal test for sporting negligence. A player who deliberately exposes another participant to a clear and obvious risk of serious injury may be liable, even without an intention to injure.

The claimant suffered a spinal fracture-dislocation and permanent paraplegia during a developmental-level women’s rugby match. The defendant, a substantially more experienced and heavier player, tackled the claimant as she bent down to collect the ball while acting as scrum-half.

Liability was tried as a preliminary issue, with damages to be assessed later. The central questions were whether sporting negligence required proof of recklessness or a very high degree of carelessness, and whether the defendant’s tackle fell below the applicable standard of care.

1. Applicable standard. The court endorsed the formulation in Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866: the question is whether the defendant failed to exercise the degree of care appropriate in all the circumstances. The objective standard is modified by the nature and level of the sport, the players’ experience, the speed of the contest, and its accepted risks.
2. The laws and conventions of rugby are relevant factors, but they do not determine civil liability. An illegal or dangerous tackle under the laws is not necessarily negligent, and a lawful tackle may nevertheless be negligent.
3. The court explained that Blake v Galloway [2004] 1 WLR 2844 did not impose a universal requirement of recklessness or very high carelessness. That heightened standard reflected the particular characteristics of the horseplay in that case. The court also relied on Smoldon v Whitworth (1997) ELR 249, where a recklessness-only approach was rejected.
4. On the facts, the defendant deliberately tackled the claimant while she was stationary, bent over, vulnerable and not in possession of the ball. The defendant used her full weight and force in a downward movement which was plainly dangerous and liable to cause serious injury. The court found reckless disregard for the claimant’s safety and no mere error of judgment.
5. The defendant was liable in negligence. Judgment was entered for the claimant, with damages to be assessed subsequently.