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

13 August 2008

/article_images/articledir_1785/892816/1_listing.jpg

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

I am not so sure that Justice Swift is to blame — it is rather more the zeitgeist, the terrible wish on behalf of society to expunge all possible risk from our lives. To legislate against risk, even when you are doing something risky. A short while ago FIFA decided to work out a system of compensation for clubs whose players were injured while on international duty — such a thing, ten or 15 years ago, would have been unthinkable. Newcastle United, you may remember, whined long and hard for compensation when their star striker, Michael Owen, sustained a serious injury while playing for England. To many outside observers, it seemed that Owen would rather hack off his own leg than play for the Geordies — a club he did not wish to join and from which he has tried desperately to escape — but still, the FA coughed up.

So in the wake of this, and the Collett award, either the game will have to change beyond imagination, to the extent that it becomes effectively a non-contact sport, or clubs and players will become uninsurable. Already local football authorities, the people who run the little leagues, are warning about the need to take out comprehensive insurance: I wonder how many park sides that will put out of business. One bunch of personal injury vultures, a legal firm specialising in sports injuries, are busy hauling in the claims. Their website states: ‘All players have a legal duty to take care for (sic) the safety of opponents. So if your football in-jury was caused by the stupidity of an opponent, don’t let anyone tell you it’s all part of the game, mate.’ This firm claims to have sucked up (sorry, ‘recovered’) two million quid in claims recently; 100 per cent, no win no fee. Come on, sue that mountain.

The common-sense approach was surely recognised by Justice Hallett; football games are full of accident, poor decision-making, errors committed in the heat of a moment, awkwardness and bad timing. Players who take to the field should be mentally prepared for the consequences of these human frailties. That, at least, was the mindset six or seven years ago when Darren Pitcher lodged his claim. But not any more.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

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