Australian rules footballer injured

Australian rules footballer injured Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Law Essay Writing Service . You can view samples of our professional work here . Australian rules footballer injured ‘A professional Australian rules footballer injured when an opposition player makes physical contact with him in any manner whatsoever is prevented from successfully suing that opposition player for trespass to the person because all such professional footballers consent to the risk of physical injury when they play football†. Critically analyse this statement. In a game of football, the event of physical contact between players can result in not only physical repercussions but also legal consequences. Under civil law, a football player who has been trespassed or affronted by another player could potentially sue him on the grounds of trespass to the person. The law recognises that in most sports, physical contact is to be expected and as such, will only award damages to certain cases. In addition, professional footballers consent to the risk of physical injury, further limiting the prospects of launching successful legal action. Despit e this, physical contact can attract legal liability and professional footballers sometimes sue successfully – whether or not the judge awards him damages. Battery is the main type of trespass to the person action if a football player wants to sue an opposition player for making physical contact with him. It can be defined as a deliberate or negligent act that directly causes physical contact with another. It is actionable per se and therefore there does not need to be any quantifiable damage for there to be a viable action. However, in order to launch a successful action, all elements of battery must be proved in court. These elements include: directness of the act, positive action, interference and unlawful justification The concept of what constitutes directness has been the subject of some judicial debate. Two cases, Innes v Wylie[citation] and Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire[citation] provide some clarification on this element. In Innes v Wylie, Denman CJ direct ed the jury that if the defendant had stood ‘entirely passive like a door or a wall put to prevent the plaintiff from entering the room’, this would not constitute a battery[citation]. Laws LJ further added in Haystead v Chief Constable of Derbyshire that the directness of the act could also be a â€Å"direct consequence of an application of force† [citation, at 13]. It is arguable that most of the physical contact present in football is not passive and this factor of directness would probably be conveniently supported in court through footage recorded from the match. If a player strikes an opposition player, which then causes him to fall down and sustain damage on his head, this could also attract legal liability as a result of Laws LJ judgement. The combination of this increased scope in liability and active nature of physical contact in football makes it significantly straightforward in arguing that there is an element of directness – should a professio nal football player want to sue under trespass to the person. Australian cases tend to support the proposition that hostility is not a necessary element to battery. In the case of Rixon v Star City Pty Ltd[citation], Sheller JA stated that: