Rugby player's liability for collision upheld by Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling that a rugby player who ran full speed into an opponent was liable for the latter's serious spinal injuries. 

Tom Clark, the defendant, was playing as an open side flanker for Midsomer Norton, while Omar Elbanna, the claimant, was a prop forward for Cheltenham Tigers during a match on 7 October 2017.

Following half time, and as the game restarted, the defendant ran forward to chase the ball and collided with the claimant, causing him to suffer a serious spinal injury, the Court of Appeal heard.

Elbanna - represented by Slater & Gordon - sued Clark, alleging the collision was negligently made by the defendant with reckless disregard for the safety of the claimant, contrary to the laws of rugby, which are set by its global governing body, World Rugby. Those laws hold that a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball, except in a scrum, ruck or maul.

In the High Court, Mr Justice Sweeting found that - whether or not the collision was intentional - for the defendant to have run directly at the claimant at full speed and to have collided with him was reckless and amounted to playing an opponent without the ball in contravention of the laws, and courted the risk of injury.

On appeal, Clark - represented by Weightmans - argued such a heavy collision was usual in a contact sport such as rugby, and argued the outcome of the collision had influenced the judge’s view of what had occurred. He argued that what was required was a foreseeable risk of serious injury as opposed to the risk of knocking a player over.

But Lady Justice Nicola Davies, delivering the judgment of a unanimous Court of Appeal, said the risk which the defendant had been ‘courting’ was one which could reasonably be foreseen to result in serious injury.

‘This was not an error of judgment or momentary carelessness by the defendant’, Davies said. 'In colliding with the claimant the defendant failed to exercise such a degree of care as was appropriate. Put shortly, the defendant was negligent.'