I'm due to do my first moot in a couple of days and I'm totally stuck with how to approach it.
The element I'm arguing is; "Even if he did owe a duty of care there had not been a breach of that duty as he did not show a reckless disregard for the players’ safety."
I just don't know where to go with it. Help!!!Edit: Think I should add a bit more. I'm considering going down the defence of consent route in that taking part in a sporting event, you consent to a certain level of aggressive play and Mike was simply acting within his capacity to keep the pace and order of the game, but the aggression with which the players have acted and contributed has been mutually consensual as, if Edge Hall thought the play was dangerously aggressive, they could have called off the game but chose to continue to participate. Of course case law would be involved in the discussion, just curious as to thoughts.Mike, a qualified referee, is refereeing an open age football match between Burnston Rovers and Edge Hall Town. Burnston are playing in a very aggressive manner with lots of fouls being committed by their players. At half time, Edge Hall Town’s manager reminds Mike that there are cards in his pocket and he should consider using them to deter the foul play. Despite this, Mike makes no attempt to reprimand the Burnston players and the fouls continue throughout the second half. In the last minute of the game, Steve, the Burnston captain, jumps two footed into a tackle with Paul, with studs showing. The tackle makes contact with Paul’s leg and it is later revealed that he has broken his right fibula bone. Paul sues Mike for negligence.
Tort is a subject I've not done for close to a year and I've never looked at sports law so I'm very confused indeed.
My First moot and I need help Watch
- Thread Starter
Last edited by Steveo2009; 04-12-2010 at 03:19.
- 04-12-2010 03:11
- 04-12-2010 04:22
I suggest that you also look at causation.
The facts you've been given are very brief, but the first mention of Steve in particular is the incident itself. I would argue that even if Mike had been issuing red and yellow cards, that there was nothing before the incident that had put him on notice that Steve himself should be carded. Once Steve went for the tackle, there would have been nothing that Mike could do to prevent it.
Of course, Paul's argument in response will be that by letting the unruly play go on without sanctioning anyone, he'd created an environment where players expected that they could get away with breaking the rules/pushing the limits.
I think the consent argument is limited. Players are usually taken only to have consented to the kind of physical contact that's allowed by the rules of the game (at least, that's the case in Australia. I'm just assuming that the English position will be similar). I don't know the first thing about football, so it could be that Burnston's behaviour was within the bounds of the rules, but given that the facts refer to them committing fouls, I doubt that's the case.
Anyway, that's just my two cents. Good luck!
- 04-12-2010 19:35
Not sure consent is really relevant to "he didn't show a reckless disregard for the player's safety"????
You need to work out what the legal standard is, and then think of say three good reasons why that standard is not met on these facts
Try not to overthink it