The Treatment of Women and Men Sports Players
Sport plays a major part in the culture of today’s society. Many
people spend considerable time in front of the television, in sports
grounds and traveling all over the country to support their respective
club whether it be football, rugby, cricket or netball etc. However
whilst playing, spectating or just generally being involved in a
sport, things can go wrong and this very often results in an action in
the civil or criminal courts.
Sporting incidents should be dealt with like any other civil or
criminal action, however there is evidence this is not happening in
many cases in both areas of law.
There can be several areas of civil law where claims can be made.
These are Negligence, occupier’s liability, defamation, nuisance,
trespass and animals. However not all these will need to be looked at,
the main ones being Negligence and occupiers liability. It is in the
area of negligence that I will look at the sporting cases and how they
differ from non - sporting cases of civil wrongs. I will be looking at
participators, clubs, referees and spectators. In the second section
I will be looking at negligence and injuries in football and how they
differ from non football negligence and injuries.
Part 1 The Law of Negligence
Negligence occurs in many areas of civil Law. Negligence consists of
three elements, namely a legal duty to take care, breach of that duty
and damage suffered as a consequence of that breach.
The test for establishing whether a duty of care is owed is based on
the famous case of Donaghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562 and the neighbour
principle set out by Lord Atkin. This principle of reasonable
foreseeability of harm and a close and direct relationship together
with the element of ‘is it just and reasonable’ to impose such a duty
is necessary to establish the existence of a duty of care in respect
of anyone who has been physically injured. The duty test is expanded
in cases such as Caparo v Dickman  1 ALL ER 568
In Caparo Industries v Dickman Lord Roskill commented that “it has now
to be accepted that there is no simple formula or touchstone” in the
formulation of the test for the existence of the duty of care. Phrases
such as ‘foreseeability’, ‘proximity’, ‘neighbourhood’, ‘just and
reasonable’, ‘fairness’, ‘voluntary acceptance of risk’ will be found
in several different cases. But such phrases are not precise
definitions. At best they are but labels or phrases descriptive of
very different factual situations that arise in different cases, and
they must be carefully examined in each case before it can be
determined whether a duty of care exists and if so what is the scope
of that duty. It was established in the case of Donahue v Stevenson.
Liability for negligent conduct had previously been...