A hockey player, during a professional game, intentionally checked another player into the boards with significant force, causing minor injuries. The injured player sues for battery. The defendant argues that their conduct was a common and accepted aspect of the sport. What is the most appropriate defense in this case?
The most appropriate defense is consent. In contact sports, players implicitly consent to physical contact that is within the rules and customs of the game. A hockey check is a recognized and accepted aspect of the sport when performed within the bounds of the game rules. However, actions that exceed the expectations of commonly accepted conduct, such as intentionally injuring another player in a way not customary to the sport, would fall outside the scope of consent. Incorrect options, such as privilege of self-defense, are inapplicable here as the facts do not indicate any threat or need for defensive action. Parental privilege is equally inapplicable since the scenario involves professional athletes, not a parent-child relationship.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does it mean that players implicitly consent to contact in sports?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the rules and customs that define acceptable conduct in hockey?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why can't the privilege of self-defense be successfully argued in this context?