For a footballer to sue for ‘negligence’ is like a climber suing a mountain

Rod Liddle

16 August 2008

The case of Ben Collett, the footballer awarded £4.5 million for a tackle that ended his career, bodes ill for the game, says Rod Liddle. Blame the zeitgeist, not the judge

If you went rock-climbing in the Andes and, halfway up a vertical cliff face, the surface beneath your feet crumbled away and you slipped and fell — condors and local Indian tribesmen laughing in the background, air whistling past your ears and then bang, bang, bang as you clatter into the ground, sustaining disfiguring but not fatal injuries — well, would you sue the mountain for negligence? Get your lawyers on to it double quick, shove in a claim for a million quid or so? Press conference on the steps of the court with you in your wheelchair: ‘It is time that mountains understood that they have a duty of care under the law. Let this be a lesson.’

The former professional footballer Ben Collett, who almost played for Manchester United but didn’t quite, has just been awarded what will be, with pension rights, £4.5 million in compensation for a tackle which ended his career. Ben was 18 when he made his debut for Manchester United reserves in a game against Middlesbrough reserves and was the subject of a ‘negligent’ tackle by Boro’s Gary Smith. Now, my definition of a negligent tackle has always been one which leaves the opposing player in possession of all his limbs, and also the ball. This is the first time I have heard the word used to mean almost the opposite: that Mr Smith, as he approached to make the tackle, may have temporarily forgotten his legal duty of care towards Mr Collett, had he ever been aware of it in the first place. Nobody argued that the ensuing tackle was malicious, premeditated or any of the sort of stuff you see every week on Match of the Day. Just negligent — i.e., a bit on the reckless side, maybe an error of judgment on the part of Gary Smith.

1 | 2 | 3 Next page

More articles from: Rod Liddle | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Andrew Forbes

August 15th, 2008 12:23pm Report this comment

Talking of suing the mountain, no-one would dream of suing the govt of Peru for the negligently perilous state of its mountains, but I'm a bit worried that the Lake District will have to be closed, because the National Parks authority can't affords the insurance premium, after an errant lawsuit.

NICKY BIRD

August 15th, 2008 4:23pm Report this comment

Chief Judge Cardozo [Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co., New York, 1929] famously opined that the spectator at a sporting event ‘accepts the dangers that inhere in it so far as they are obvious and necessary...' and that a player does likewise - 'a fencer accepts the risk of a thrust by his antagonist...The timorous may stay at home.’ Common sense. Pity Justice Swift doesn't have it.

Geoff Cohen

August 15th, 2008 7:04pm Report this comment

Why be surprised? The lawyers grow fatter and the judge is a lawyer. The concept of conflict of interest doesn't apply to our lordships.

Douglas W Brydone

August 15th, 2008 8:53pm Report this comment

Absolutely astonishing that such a decision can be made, what more can I say, except agree with all three below, and for the legally minded gentry of intelligentsia Nicky Bird gives me proof that some legal people do not bring their reputation into disrepute, mind you that was almost 100 years ago. How time informs us.

Kevin

August 16th, 2008 11:47am Report this comment

Negligence claims have become a means for reinstating slavery. The only way to cope with them is to sue the stuffing out of the first person that gives you the opportunity, then deposit your winnings in a special account ready for when someone else does the same to you.

Post comment