## Facts

- Dale Hackbart, a Denver Broncos free safety with extensive football experience, sued Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. and Bengals fullback Charles “Booby” Clark for injuries allegedly caused during an NFL game.
- During a Broncos–Bengals game in Denver on September 16, 1973, a Bengals forward pass was intercepted near the goal line and returned upfield, reversing player roles.
- In the end zone, Hackbart fell and then remained kneeling with one knee down and the other leg extended while watching the play move upfield.
- The court found Clark, acting out of anger and frustration but without a specific intent to injure, struck Hackbart with a right forearm blow to the back of Hackbart’s head, causing both players to fall forward.
- No official observed the blow; no penalty was assessed; both players returned to their sidelines without immediate complaint.
- Hackbart continued playing in that game and two later games before seeking medical treatment; he was later diagnosed with a neck injury he attributed to the blow.
- The case proceeded in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, with a separate non-jury trial limited to liability.

## Issues

1. Whether an intentional, rule-prohibited on-field blow in a professional football game can constitute an actionable tort, or is barred because such conduct falls within the implied consent and assumed risks of the sport.
2. Whether professional football’s internal rules and disciplinary mechanisms displace judicial tort remedies for injuries arising from in-game conduct.
3. Whether, under the rules, customs, and usages of professional football, players owe a judicially enforceable duty of care to avoid such contact.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for the defendants on liability.
- The court concluded Hackbart had no cognizable tort claim for the on-field blow because it occurred in the course of a professional football game within the sport’s accepted level of violence.
- The court treated Hackbart’s remedies as limited to those administered within the game and league discipline rather than civil tort damages.

## Legal Principles

- Tort liability requires a judicially cognizable duty, breach, causation, and injury; in sports cases, duty and breach may be limited by implied consent and assumption of risk.
- Participants in an inherently violent contact sport may impliedly consent to risks and physical contact customary to the game, including some conduct that violates written rules in practice.
- Where conduct is viewed as part of the accepted violence of professional football and occurs during play, internal sporting sanctions may be treated as the exclusive remedy, precluding tort recovery.

## Conclusion

The district court held that an intentional forearm strike delivered during an NFL game, though motivated by anger and contrary to the rules, fell within the risks and implied consent associated with professional football and therefore did not support tort liability; any recourse was confined to the sport’s internal enforcement mechanisms.


Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 352 (D. Colo. 1977)