Brief facts of the case
Discuss about the Indeterminacy Uncertainty Principle Of Negligence.
Rugby is considered as type of football which is played with the oval shaped ball, and in this game more activities are included instead of handling. This game includes high risk of injuries. This paper discussed the case law Peter Joseph Haylen vs. NSW rugby union Ltd 2002, which was filed in the supreme court of New South Wales common law division. This case was filed by the plaintiff named Peter Joseph Haylen against the defendant New South Wales rugby union limited. For the purpose of this assignment I would like to represent this case on part of defendant that was Peter Joseph Haylen.
Structure of this paper includes brief facts of the case, issues raised by both the parties, arguments stated by both the parties, decision taken by the Court, critical analysis of the decision taken by the Court from the point of view of plaintiff and for this purpose different points are analyzed. Lastly, brief conclusion is provided to put this paper on end.
On 17th April 1982, injury was suffered by the Peter Joseph Haylen (Plaintiff) which cause quadriplegia at the time when plaintiff was playing Second Grade Colts rugby union football match as a member of the Sydney University Football Club team against the St George Rugby Union Club team.
On 15th April 1988, two sets of proceedings were initiated by the plaintiff in the Common Law Division of the NSW Court. First set of proceeding (Proceedings No 11883/88) were initiated against the NSW Rugby Union Limited (NSWRU) and the second set of proceeding (Proceedings No 11884/88) was initiated by the plaintiff against the University of Sydney.
In this case, it was believed by the plaintiff that NSWRU owns duty of care towards the plaintiff in context of authority which regulates and monitor the rules related to the rugby union in New South Wales and must ensure that the players such as plaintiff does not bare to serious injury. This was the reason, when plaintiff suffered serious injury in a scrum which resulted in quadriplegic makes the NSWRU negligent in failing to take proper care of the plaintiff and fails to warning him related to the risk of injury while playing the sport.
The central issue in this case was whether defendant owns any duty of care towards the plaintiff or not.
In this case, high Court stated that the board does not own any duty of care because it was too remote on part of the NSW administration of the game. Court further stated that, danger was generally part of the attraction for players and decision of the plaintiff to participate in the game was free decision because of which responsibility of the injury was autonomy. Plaintiff argued that his client’s case was different from the ruling provided by the High Court, because the game was propagating, controlling and organizing by the NSWRU in the NSW. Judge of the NSW Supreme Court stated that issues raised in this case can be applied on dangerous sports, including basketball, boxing or those at the Winter Olympics (Austlii, 2002).
Issues of both the parties
First and most important question in this case deals with the duty of care and the concept of the legal responsibility in context of the contact sports such as sports such as rugby football. Parties of the dispute were mainly at the issue as to what was the ratio decidendi of the decision of the High Court.
The original statement in this case which was stated in the first set of proceedings materially pleaded the integration of the defendant, and the defendant number of time propagated the game of rugby union in the State of NSW. In this plaintiff stated that defendant own s duty of care towards him because they organize and regulates the game of rugby union and were responsible not to bare the plaintiff towards the unnecessary risk of injury. Team of the plaintiff packed over before engaging with the opposite team and the second row pushed forward before such engagement and this result in collapse of two props with the plaintiff and pushed him forwards because of which he pinned his arms and broke his spine and became a quadriplegic.
Plaintiff further stated that defendant breach his duty of care because he failed to take proper care of the safety of the plaintiff while regulating and controlling the game. This was the reason of the breach because of which plaintiff suffered injury (ESPN, 2002).
On the part of defendant, question arise was there was no such evidence present which stated that defendant regulate or controls the game in such manner which was state by the plaintiff. In other words, defendant stated that he does not own any such duty towards the plaintiff and there was no breach of duty of care?
In this plaintiff stated that defendant breaches his duty of care negligently because he does not take proper care of the plaintiff safety while paying the game of rugby union. Because of this breach of duty of care, plaintiff suffered the injury. Injury suffered by plaintiff was happened because of the defendant negligence, and this can be said on the basis of following arguments:
- Defendant propagates the game even when the rules related to the game exposed the person playing the game to the unnecessary risk of injury.
- Defendant fails to control or regulate the game properly in context of eliminating the unnecessary risk of injury to those individuals who were playing.
- Defendant fails to warn the persons in context of risk of injury who were playing the game.
In case defendant, counsel stated various grounds for proving that defendant does not own any duty of care towards the plaintiff, and these grounds were stated below:
- In context of 1982 game which was subject to the claim made by plaintiff, it was played as part of the Sydney grade competition, and during that period this competition was controlled by the Sydney Rugby Union (SRU). That the competition was organized by the SRU, and in no manner it exercise control over those individuals who played for individual clubs in that competition.
- That neither the SRU and nor the NSWRU did not had power to direct or compel the plaintiff to take part in the match in which plaintiff get injury.
- NSWRU only manage the coaching and development of the NSW state team, and it had no involvement in running the competitions.
- Both SRU and NSWRU do not have the ability to control or direct the individual clubs who were appointed as coaches for their teams.
- Both SRU and NSWRU do not exercise any control in context of refereeing of individual matches, because referees were appointed by the Sydney Rugby Referees Association.
- Both NSWRU and SRU do not exercise any power in terms of amending the laws related to the game, and at that time when they were the administrator of the rugby game organize any such game in Australia which does not complied with the laws of rugby football as propagated by the International Rugby Football Board (The Queensland Law Handbook, 2016).
In this case, court used the reasonableness in form of determining the factor for the duty of care. Court recognized that this game includes the risk of broken necks which were serious in nature, and it also includes some minor risks also such as tackling, scrummaging, rucking and mauling. These risks related to sport were commonly seen as dangerous in the society and injuries related to this were serious in nature.
Arguments by both the parties
Court also determine the duty of NSWRU towards those who were playing rugby, and for this purpose judge stated that it was really difficult to characterize the duties such as determination of duty in context of making the changes in the rule and duty of inform to the individual about the risk related to catastrophic injury. It was not possible to make any difference between what was considered as risk in lieu of serious injury and risks of catastrophic injury.
While taking the decision of this case, judges consider the ruling of the Agar v Hyde’ (2001) 9 TLJ 131, as facts of this case were almost similar to the present case. It was not possible to use the reference because it was impossible to find an objective standard for measuring the level of risk which was involved in the inherently dangerous body contact for considering what was acceptable. In Agar case, High Court states the difference and recognize under common law, as in context of positive acts which cause damage and failure to act which cause damage does not impose any duty of care on person to take action in those situation where no positive action conduct of that person create risk of injury for another person (High Court of Australia, 2000).
In this case, Callinan J stated that any power and functions of the appellants were voluntary in nature and does not deals with the duty own to the respondents, and for this purpose udge refer the decision given by Gaudron J in Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee [1999] HCA 59; (1999) 200 CLR 1. In this case, judge stated that liability will arise in that situation only when failure to act in any situation relates with the duty to act, and no such duty was imposed on NSWRU in this context (High Court of Australia, 1999).
Judge further stated that even in case NSWRU holds the power to made amendments in the rules related to the game then also there was no duty of care on part of the defendant.
As stated above, I will present this case from point of view of the defendant, and in this case was won by the defendant. As this section states the reasons because of which defendant side was stronger and the reasons because which judges agreed with the arguments of the defendant. There were number of reasons which made the defendant side stronger and on the basis of these grounds Court denied the duty of care on part of defendant:
- This Sport was played by the freely consenting adults, and it was completely against to the notion of individual autonomy for imposing the legal duty on the rule-making body for the purpose of making the sport safer.
- Content related to the duty was problematic in that manner as it cause issue in defining the unnecessary risk in the most risky activity.
- As alleged duty made the foreign defendant obligatory to take positive action for the purpose of protecting the plaintiff, and no such relationship was exist between the plaintiff and defendant which impose duties under tort of negligence on the defendant.
- NSWRU was not in the position to change the rules related to the game in context of making the sport safer (Austlii, n.d.).
However, on part of plaintiff it can be said that plaintiff relied on very weak evidences such as those material which allowed the NSWRU different powers like Memorandum and Articles of Association of the NSWRU. They depend on the provision which support the submission that defendant was in the position to ensure that the rules related to the game were adopted and they also had power to punish those who fails to comply with the adopted rules. It can be said that these evidence were no sufficient to prove such big claim. Plaintiff also failed to provide the evidence to argue with the defendant’s affidavit evidence in lieu of lack of practical control related to the rules of the game.
Conclusion:
After considering the facts of the case, it can be said that decision taken by the Court was effective in nature and it can be considered as the historical decision because it provide rulings to the injuries occurred in games. In this case, high Court stated that the board does not own any duty of care because it was too remote on part of the NSW administration of the game. Court further stated that, danger was generally part of the attraction for players and decision of the plaintiff to participate in the game was free decision because of which responsibility of the injury was autonomy.
References:
Agar v Hyde’ (2001) 9 TLJ 131.
Austlii, (2002). Peter Joseph Haylen vs. NSW rugby union Ltd 2002. Available at: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2002/114.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title%28Peter%20Joseph%20Haylen%20near%20New%20South%20Wales%20Rugby%20Union%20%29. Accessed on 14th May 2018.
Austlii. Indeterminacy: the uncertainty principle of negligence. Available at: https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUConstrLawNlr/2006/35.pdf. Accessed on 14th May 2018.
Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee [1999] HCA 59; (1999) 200 CLR 1.
ESPN, (2002). Player to sue for ‘millions’. Available at: https://en.espn.co.uk/scrum/rugby/story/40474.html. Accessed on 14th May 2018.
High Court of Australia, (1999). Crimmins v Stevedoring Committee [1999] HCA 59; 200 CLR 1; 167 ALR 1; 74 ALJR 1 (10 November 1999). Available at: https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1999/59.html. Accessed on 14th May 2018.
High Court of Australia, (2000). Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; 201 CLR 552; 173 ALR 665; 74 ALJR 1219 (3 August 2000). Available at: https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2000/41.html. Accessed on 14th May 2018.
Peter Joseph Haylen vs. NSW rugby union Ltd 2002.
The Queensland Law Handbook, (2016). Sports and Duty of care. Available at: https://queenslandlawhandbook.org.au/the-queensland-law-handbook/health-and-wellbeing/sport/sport-and-duty-of-care/. Accessed on 14th May 2018.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
