If a person decides he/she wants to fight in a NHB match and gets seriously hurt or killed, do they or their survivors have any 'right' (for lack of a better word) for a lawsuit (wrongful death ) etc... Against the promoter? the other fighter??
happens in boxing
fighters
fighters
Tracy,
Your question is an interesting one and the answer to it depends on the facts of the case and if there is a duty owed by the fighters or promotors upon which may assert a claim for some degree or negligence ranging upward to willful, wanton and reckless misconduct.
In a recent post in my Martial Arts and the Law I mention a case which emphasized that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (and other states) recognize the assumption of risk factor to any given situation.
The degree of care as always is what a reasonable man/person would be justified in doing under the circumstance.
In the case I cited, a softball league (children's) was injured by a slide to a base bag which he alleged was defective.
This was a charitable corporation operation and no one was paid. The coach was familiar with the ball field and the coach/players all knew each other.
The court ruled that the coach did not prove that anyone owed him a duty to police the base bag and that the coach knew as well as anyone what the conditions on the field were, and precluded recovery.
In the case the court cited many other cases, and came to the conclusion that the duty of care must be assessed on how dangerous or conversely what duty is owed by one party to another and this assessment is based upon the risk involved in the endeavor.
In NHB competition, the mutual risk is high, and the duty of care is to refrain from willful, wanton and reckless misconduct.
I am going to the NHB fight at Joker's on the 23d (I saw you there on the last one) and I copied the rules of engangement from the fight card section.
Since rules are established, it should be obvious that a violation would place the offender in a position of violalting a duty, and depending upon what was done, creating a dregree of culpability, and giving the personal representative of the decedent at least a right to sue. Obviously the promulgation of rules would limit speculative claims against the promotor or sponsor or what have you because this bare fisted competition, dangerous as it is, did have parameters of responsibility. Other things to consider is that the promotor did have an ambulance and EMTs present, as well as police officers, and officials who appeared to be quite competent.
I think that the taping of all events should be done as a matter of protection to all parties.
The reasonable man rule is based upon common sense (whatever that is) under the circumstances, so we can postulate all kinds of scenarios.
E.G. A man is knocked down and his opponent jumps of his prostrate form and begins to pummel him and has to be pulled off by the referee. On the other hand even accidental headbutts can be quite serious, and even so, are part of the risk.
I hope that this gives you some insight into the question you asked.
Alan K
------------------
"The Goddess of Justice is Blind"
Your question is an interesting one and the answer to it depends on the facts of the case and if there is a duty owed by the fighters or promotors upon which may assert a claim for some degree or negligence ranging upward to willful, wanton and reckless misconduct.
In a recent post in my Martial Arts and the Law I mention a case which emphasized that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (and other states) recognize the assumption of risk factor to any given situation.
The degree of care as always is what a reasonable man/person would be justified in doing under the circumstance.
In the case I cited, a softball league (children's) was injured by a slide to a base bag which he alleged was defective.
This was a charitable corporation operation and no one was paid. The coach was familiar with the ball field and the coach/players all knew each other.
The court ruled that the coach did not prove that anyone owed him a duty to police the base bag and that the coach knew as well as anyone what the conditions on the field were, and precluded recovery.
In the case the court cited many other cases, and came to the conclusion that the duty of care must be assessed on how dangerous or conversely what duty is owed by one party to another and this assessment is based upon the risk involved in the endeavor.
In NHB competition, the mutual risk is high, and the duty of care is to refrain from willful, wanton and reckless misconduct.
I am going to the NHB fight at Joker's on the 23d (I saw you there on the last one) and I copied the rules of engangement from the fight card section.
Since rules are established, it should be obvious that a violation would place the offender in a position of violalting a duty, and depending upon what was done, creating a dregree of culpability, and giving the personal representative of the decedent at least a right to sue. Obviously the promulgation of rules would limit speculative claims against the promotor or sponsor or what have you because this bare fisted competition, dangerous as it is, did have parameters of responsibility. Other things to consider is that the promotor did have an ambulance and EMTs present, as well as police officers, and officials who appeared to be quite competent.
I think that the taping of all events should be done as a matter of protection to all parties.
The reasonable man rule is based upon common sense (whatever that is) under the circumstances, so we can postulate all kinds of scenarios.
E.G. A man is knocked down and his opponent jumps of his prostrate form and begins to pummel him and has to be pulled off by the referee. On the other hand even accidental headbutts can be quite serious, and even so, are part of the risk.
I hope that this gives you some insight into the question you asked.
Alan K
------------------
"The Goddess of Justice is Blind"
fighters
great answer! Thanks..
I was talking to Joe the other night about a particular take down that is very strong (read dangerous). Joe pointed out that that takedown was used in the first Mass destruction fight card. The recipient had to be taken out on a stretcher. The move is known to be potentially lethal yet it is allowed by the rules... How does this fit in? By doing such a move in the ring or street aren't I implying a willingness to use potentially lethal force?
sticky...
I was talking to Joe the other night about a particular take down that is very strong (read dangerous). Joe pointed out that that takedown was used in the first Mass destruction fight card. The recipient had to be taken out on a stretcher. The move is known to be potentially lethal yet it is allowed by the rules... How does this fit in? By doing such a move in the ring or street aren't I implying a willingness to use potentially lethal force?
sticky...
-
gmattson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6073
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Lake Mary, Florida
- Contact:
fighters
"T": If you are referring to the takedown where the victim was picked up around 5 feet, then dumped on his head and neck. To make the throw even more dangerous, the assailant followed the throw by falling on the victim with all his 200+ pounds!
I'm surprised the guy survived!
I would not like to be defending the sponsors or assailant in a wrongful death suit where this technique is allowed.
By the way... how does the Joker's nightclub get away with holding such an event? Years ago, I was refused a license for a full contact match where kicks was allowed. I was told such matches were against the law in Massachusetts!
------------------
GEM
I'm surprised the guy survived!
I would not like to be defending the sponsors or assailant in a wrongful death suit where this technique is allowed.
By the way... how does the Joker's nightclub get away with holding such an event? Years ago, I was refused a license for a full contact match where kicks was allowed. I was told such matches were against the law in Massachusetts!
------------------
GEM
fighters
that's the one! crucifix takedown and suplexes...
Used to be kickboxing matches were illegal in MA. I believe they now come under the boxing commission???
Used to be kickboxing matches were illegal in MA. I believe they now come under the boxing commission???
-
gmattson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6073
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Lake Mary, Florida
- Contact:
fighters
Haven't checked the Mass law recently, but when I applied years ago, they told me any such match would have to be sanctioned by the boxing commission/er. According to the bylaws of the commission, kicks were not allowed and hands must have approved gloves. Very restrictive at the time. Anyone know what the law is today?
------------------
GEM
------------------
GEM
fighters
Kickboxing's illegal? What was I watching on TV a few years back (haven't looked since)?
Can you also go into the lethality of the moves? All the kickboxing I've seen is pretty standard kicks and punches, no different from most legal karate or muy thai fights, and of course, more than half of the moves in boxing can kill you--they just don't most of the time. Is this what you meant?
Can you also go into the lethality of the moves? All the kickboxing I've seen is pretty standard kicks and punches, no different from most legal karate or muy thai fights, and of course, more than half of the moves in boxing can kill you--they just don't most of the time. Is this what you meant?
-
gmattson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6073
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Lake Mary, Florida
- Contact:
fighters
Ian: There are quite a few states where, I suspect, kickboxing is illegal. Lets wait for the experts to explain the facts. I was simply siting my experiences back in the 70s.
------------------
GEM
------------------
GEM
-
Andrew Crouse
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Worcester,MA
fighters
Kickboxing is still illegal because half of the moves can kill somebody (depending on the style.)
------------------
Andrew
------------------
Andrew
