Omar Elbanna v Tom Clark

In a sporting contest, negligence is determined by whether the defendant failed to exercise the degree of care appropriate in all the circumstances. Liability does not require proof of recklessness or a very high degree of carelessness merely because the injury occurred during play. Infringement of the sport’s rules is relevant to reasonableness, but is only one consideration and may carry different weight depending on the circumstances. A participant who runs at full speed directly towards an opponent who cannot see the impending contact, without slowing, deviating or moderating the impact, may breach the duty of care where the collision was avoidable or could reasonably have been softened.

The claimant and defendant were opposing players in an amateur rugby match. At the restart, the defendant ran at speed towards the claimant, who was facing away and watching the ball. The defendant collided with the claimant’s upper back, causing a serious spinal injury.

The defendant admitted that the collision caused the acute injury. The preliminary issue of causation therefore fell away, and the trial proceeded on liability. The central issues were whether the defendant’s conduct amounted to negligence and whether it contravened the Laws of the Game.

1. Applicable legal test. The court adopted the summary in Czernuszka v King [2023] EWHC 380 (KB). Within the law of negligence, the question was whether the defendant failed to exercise such degree of care as was appropriate in all the circumstances. The sporting context did not impose a requirement to prove recklessness or a very high degree of carelessness.
2. Significance of the rugby laws. Law 10.4(f) prohibited playing an opponent without the ball, subject to permitted forms of contact. The court distinguished physical contact or obstruction from an unavoidable collision. Lack of care was not the same as intent. Compliance with, or breach of, the Laws of the Game was relevant to reasonableness, but it was only one consideration, as explained through Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866.
3. Factual application. The video showed that the defendant ran directly along the 15-metre line towards the claimant, who had his back turned and could not see him. The defendant had several strides in which to slow down or alter his line. Instead, he maintained speed and braced by driving his shoulder into the claimant’s upper back. The collision was avoidable, or could at least have been reduced to a soft contact.
4. The conduct was reckless in the ordinary sense, amounted to playing an opponent without the ball contrary to the Laws of the Game, and courted the risk of injury. Liability was therefore established on the preliminary issue.