By Simon Wu

Is the careless or reckless execution of a permitted sport maneuver negligent? The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in the recent decision of Miller v Cox, 2024 BCCA 3 (“Miller”), upheld the Trial Judge’s findings that the appellant’s execution of a slide tackle in a recreational soccer league game fell below the requisite standard of care. Accordingly, the appellant was held liable for the injuries he caused to the respondent.

Background

Karl Cox (the “Appellant”) and Jordan Miller (the ”Respondent”) were opposing players during a soccer match (the “Match”) in an organized recreational soccer league. During the Match, the Appellant executed a slide tackle from behind, taking out the Respondent’s legs as he was dribbling towards the goal. The Appellant made no contact with the ball when executing the slide tackle. The tackle caused the Respondent to fall forward and dislocate his right shoulder.

The Match was officiated by a referee according to FIFA rules, and the teams featured players of varying experience and skill levels.

Trial Judgment

At trial, both parties agreed that the Appellant’s slide tackle caused the Respondent’s injury but disagreed on whether the slide tackle constituted negligence as slide tackles were permitted in the Match.

The witnesses at trial included several players and the referee. The referee described a slide tackle from behind as very dangerous because the player in possession of the ball would not see it coming. The referee described the Appellant’s slide tackle as “very reckless”. Several players testified that the Appellant performed a “violent slide tackle” and that there was “zero chance” the Appellant could see the ball when he attempted the tackle. Rather, the Appellant was solely aiming for the Respondent’s body.

In considering the applicable standard of care, the Trial Judge determined that the law recognizes an athlete consents only to reasonable conduct from opponents, measured after all the relevant circumstances are taken into account.

Ultimately, the Trial Judge determined the Appellant’s standard of care was measured against what a reasonable competitor, in his place, would do or not do. The words “in his place” imply the need to consider the speed, the amount of body contact and the stresses in the sport, as well as the risks the players might reasonably be expected to take during the game, acting within the spirit of the game and according to standards of fair play. A breach of the rules may be one factor in determining whether conduct fell below the standard of card, but it is not determinative.

The Trial Judge concluded the Appellant’s “slide tackle” fell below the requisite standard of care as his actions “were dangerous and reckless”, and did not fall within the conduct a player would reasonably expect to encounter in a recreational league with players of varying skill levels. While slide tackles were permitted in this league, the players did not consent to dangerous and reckless conduct.

Court of Appeal

At the Court of Appeal, the primary issue was whether the Trial Judge erred in law by incorrectly articulating and applying the requisite standard of care. The Appellant argued that the Trial Judge erroneously concluded that mere carelessness in the execution of an otherwise permissible play in a sporting competition is capable of constituting negligence.

The Court of Appeal found that the Trial Judge articulated the correct standard of care. The Court of Appeal determined that Trial Judge did not resolve this case on a finding of carelessness in the context of a permitted play. Rather, she found the Appellant liable after concluding that the Appellant’s actions were objectively “dangerous” and outside both the rules of play and the conduct a player in this recreational league could reasonably expect. In short, the slide tackle was not, contrary to the Appellant’s submission, permitted by the rules of the game, nor was it merely careless. The tackle was dangerous.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that there is no authority for the broad proposition that a play permitted by the rules of the game, no matter how dangerously executed and regardless of the context in which the game is being played, can never give rise to liability in negligence. While the rules of the game are a factor to be considered along with other circumstances, the rules are by no means conclusive.

Regarding the issue of the Trial Judge’s application of the standard of care, the Appellant argued that there could only be liability if the Appellant knew or ought to have known that he had no possibility of reaching the ball. Again, the Court of Appeal disagreed and held that regardless of whether the Appellant was attempting to play the ball or not, the manner in which he executed the tackle was contrary to the rules of the game and properly attracted a penalty. The Court of Appeal also rejected the Appellant’s proposition that a defending player in a soccer game is immune from liability for negligence if there is a possibility they will contact the ball in executing a slide tackle, no matter how remote that possibility is, or how dangerous execution of the tackle will be to an opposing player. That is not and could not be the law.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Trial Judge’s findings, and the Appellant was held liable for the Respondent’s injuries.

Takeaway

The Miller decision demonstrates that the rules of a sport will not entirely shield participants from legal repercussions. What happens on the pitch does not necessarily stay on the pitch. Athletes should be cautious about the actions they take in a game and keep in mind the potential legal implications of overly aggressive play.

Recreational and amateur sporting leagues may or may not possess liability insurance for injuries and damages arising out of play. The Miller decision demonstrates that participants in recreational sports may attract liability for their actions where they engage in conduct that is outside what a reasonable competitor, in their position, would do.

If you have any questions about this topic or any other insurance-related issues, please feel free to contact a member of our insurance team who would be happy to assist you.