The recent Court of Appeal decision in Elbanna v Clark has once again brought the issue of player liability in contact sports to the forefront. The case involved a serious spinal injury sustained during an amateur rugby match in 2017, when the defendant ran at full speed into the claimant, who was not in possession of the ball at the time. The High Court initially found the defendant liable for negligence, and this verdict was upheld on appeal.
As a member of West Norfolk Rugby Club and the parent of an under-16s team player, I am keenly aware of the importance of safety and fair play in the game we all love. Pre-season training is just around the corner, and this case offers timely lessons for players, parents, and club officials alike.
The incident occurred at the start of the second half, when the defendant ran directly at the claimant, causing a serious spinal injury. The courts found that the collision was not a “momentary error of judgment” but a failure to exercise the appropriate degree of care. The defendant’s actions amounted to playing an opponent without the ball, contrary to the laws of rugby, and were deemed reckless and negligent.
The case is notable for its treatment of the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria, the principle that a person who voluntarily assumes a risk of harm cannot later claim compensation for injury. In rugby, as in other contact sports, players are generally taken to accept the ordinary risks of the game. However, the courts have made clear that this does not extend to reckless or dangerous conduct outside the accepted norms of play.
The Elbanna v Clark case demonstrates that while players agree to the inherent risks of rugby, they do not consent to actions that are clearly outside the rules and spirit of the game. The courts have consistently held that the doctrine of volenti does not protect a player who acts in a way that is not reasonably foreseeable as part of normal play. In this case, the defendant’s conduct was found to be avoidable and not within the ordinary risks of rugby, distinguishing it from the usual operation of volenti.
There is a natural concern among the rugby community that cases like this may lead to the “sanitisation” of a game built on physicality and camaraderie. However, it is important to remember that rugby remains a sport for all shapes, sizes, and abilities. At West Norfolk, we pride ourselves on inclusivity and fostering a sense of community.
The law does not seek to eliminate contact from rugby, but rather to ensure that players are protected from reckless or dangerous actions. The courts have repeatedly emphasised that liability will only arise in exceptional cases where the conduct falls outside the accepted standards of play.
As pre-season training approaches, it is reassuring to know that the law continues to uphold the safety and wellbeing of all participants. The Elbanna v Clark decision reinforces the importance of fair play, respect, and adherence to the rules. Parents can be confident that the game, and the law, will protect their children and allow them to enjoy rugby in a safe and supportive environment.
Andrew Stevenson, Member and Parent at West Norfolk Rugby Club, comments:
“Rugby is a wonderful, inclusive sport that brings people together and teaches important life lessons. The Elbanna v Clark case reminds us all to play with care and respect for our fellow players. At Hawkins Ryan, we are committed to supporting clubs and individuals in navigating the legal landscape of amateur sport, ensuring that everyone can enjoy the game safely.”
Let’s use this case as an opportunity to reinforce the values of fair play and safety within our clubs. As we prepare for the new season, let’s ensure that all players, coaches, and officials understand their responsibilities, and that the spirit of rugby continues to thrive.
For those involved in amateur sport with questions about liability, insurance, or safeguarding, our team at Hawkins Ryan is here to help. Together, we can keep the game we love safe, fair, and enjoyable for everyone.