## Facts

- Robert J. Gauvin and Richard Clark were opposing centers in a college varsity hockey game.
- After a face-off in the second period, the puck moved away from the players toward the Nichols College net.
- Gauvin was struck in the abdomen by the butt end of Clark’s hockey stick (“butt-ending”), an act prohibited by hockey safety rules.
- A teammate testified the blow occurred after the face-off was completed and when the two players were no longer competing for the puck.
- Gauvin suffered serious injuries, including removal of his spleen, missed school, and ongoing abdominal and bladder pain.
- In a tort action, the jury found Clark butt-ended Gauvin, violated a safety rule, caused Gauvin’s injuries, and that Gauvin did not consent to the specific act causing the injury.
- The jury also found Clark did not act willfully, wantonly, or recklessly; the trial judge entered judgment for Clark and denied Gauvin’s post-trial motions.

## Issues

1. What standard of care governs liability between participants in an athletic event for injuries inflicted during play.
2. Whether a player may be held liable based on negligent or rule-violating conduct absent a finding of recklessness.
3. Whether the trial court properly entered judgment for the defendant based on the jury’s special findings.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the judgment for Clark.
- The court held that co-participants in an athletic event owe each other a duty to refrain from reckless misconduct, not merely negligent conduct.
- Because the jury found Clark did not act willfully, wantonly, or recklessly, judgment for Clark was proper under the governing standard.
- The court held that violation of a safety rule may support an inference of recklessness but does not establish recklessness as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- Participants in athletic events have a limited duty to other participants: they must refrain from reckless misconduct.
- Recklessness (as reflected in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 500) requires more than negligence and involves a conscious disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm.
- In contact sports, ordinary negligence claims between co-participants are generally barred because physical contact and injury risk are inherent in the activity.
- A violation of a sport’s safety rule is relevant evidence on recklessness but is not automatically sufficient to impose tort liability.
- When special verdict findings negate recklessness, a plaintiff cannot recover for co-participant sports injuries under the recklessness standard.

## Conclusion

The court held that player-to-player liability in a contact sport requires proof of reckless misconduct; because the jury found no recklessness, the defendant was not liable despite a safety-rule violation and lack of consent to the specific blow.


Gauvin v. Clark, 537 N.E.2d 94 (Mass. 1989)