The incident accrued in mid-August...
I need help with a personal injury/ assault and battery case.
The incident accrued in mid-August 2010. I was assaulted playing indoor soccer on a hardwood roller rink. There was a video of the incident at the time which partially obscured but it has been deleted. I was a goalie and I was assaulted when an opposing player took my legs out from me 3-5 seconds after I picked up the ball. I landed on my head and sustained a torn labrum, a concusion I am still dizzy from, and I have damaged discs in my neck. I am in pain every day. I had left labrum surgery in June 2011. I have been to physical therapy for about a year in a half out of the 2 years. I would like to sue:
Opposing player : assault
Soccer Ref: personal injury
Indoor soccer arena: personal injury.
I know how to sue pro-se to an extent but I do not know draft court order to get the player and the soccer ref’s name. Lawyers do not want to take my case. I can't even find somebody to draft a court order for me.( How do you draft a court order in the state of new jersey?)
(See legal argument below)
In Nabozny v. Barnhill n2, the Plaintiff, a soccer goalie, was kicked in the face by another player during an amateur soccer match. The Nabozny case was the first Appellate Court case in Illinois to recognize the contact sport exception to the general rule that a person is responsible for his negligent acts or omissions. The court stated that to allow the plaintiff goalie to sue another player in negligence
under these facts would obviously have a chilling effect on other players who choose to play soccer, basketball, hockey, football, softball, etc. The court held that a player could still be liable in tort if his conduct was either deliberate, willful, or with a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Nabozny supra.
Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc
Share on facebookShare on emailShare on print|More Sharing ServicesMore
Citation. 444 U.S. 931XXXXX 275 62 L. Ed. 2d(NNN) NNN-NNNNU.S.
click the citation to view the entire case on
Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff, a professional football player, was injured when one of Defendant’s players intentionally struck him during a game. Both continued to play in the game and did not make any complaints at the time. Plaintiff later sued to recover for his injuries.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Even in an inherently violent situation such as a game of professional football, it is possible for one to go beyond its customs and so be liable for injuries in tort.
Facts. Plaintiff was injured by one of Defendant’s players in a professional football game. Defendant’s player intentionally struck Plaintiff, but was not found to have intended to injure him. Neither of the two complained to officials at the time of the injury, but Plaintiff later sued to collect for his personal injuries. The trial court took judicial notice of the violent nature of professional football and found that the only remedies available to Plaintiff would be those administered within the game.
Issue. Was the Trial Court correct in finding that Plaintiff had no remedy at law due to the extremely violent nature of professional football?
Discussion. The Court was called upon to analyze an implied consent defense. The trial court clearly found that one engaging in professional football was aware of its dangers and therefore surrendered his rights to seek redress for injuries sustained in the process. The Court explains here, however, that there is a question of scope to such consent, and the mere understanding of a sport’s generally violent nature does not extinguish all rights to recover for truly egregious conduct that is beyond the pale even of what professional football commonly entails.
Sizable Settlement From Broken Jaw When One Soccer Player Punched Another
John represented a 16-year-old Briarcliff Manor High School soccer player who was punched in the jaw in a game against Rye Neck High School in Westchester County, New York. The injured victim was the son of a lawyer who does not do personal injury work. The young man suffered a fractured jaw, which was wired shut for six weeks. John recovered a substantial sum from the defendant’s parents’ homeowner’s policy despite the fact that the defendant pled guilty to assault in the criminal court. John was able to avoid the carrier’s defense of no coverage for an intentional act (a) by claiming that the act was intentional but the result was unintended, and (b) by keeping the criminal guilty plea out of civil court due to the defendant’s “youthful offender” status, which in New York keeps his guilty plea under seal. Depositions were taken and then the insurance carrier met John’s settlement demand. The amount recovered in this case is confidential