## Facts

- Hamilton I. Cartwright and Cecil Geysel participated in a prizefight in Seattle on February 5, 1929.
- Cartwright received a blow during the bout and died from the injury.
- The bout constituted illegal prizefighting under a Washington statute criminalizing such conduct.
- The estate’s complaint did not allege that the fight was in anger, involved malicious intent to seriously injure, or used excessive force.
- The pleadings asserted the fight was voluntarily entered and did not show a willful or malicious intent by Geysel to kill or seriously injure Cartwright.
- Cartwright’s administrator sued Geysel and others involved in staging the bout, seeking wrongful-death damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a wrongful-death action may be maintained when the decedent voluntarily participated in an illegal prizefight and was killed during the encounter.
2. Whether the decedent’s consent and participation in the unlawful combat bars the estate’s recovery absent allegations of malice or excessive force.
3. Whether the administrator’s rights are limited to the rights the decedent would have had if he had lived and sued for his injuries.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgment dismissing the action after demurrers were sustained.
- The court held that no wrongful-death action lies where an illegal prizefight was voluntarily entered and the complaint alleged no anger, malicious intent to cause serious injury, or excessive force.
- Because the wrongful-death claim was derivative, the administrator was barred if the decedent would have been barred had he lived.

## Legal Principles

- In wrongful-death litigation, the personal representative’s claim is derivative; the representative has no greater right to recover than the decedent would have had for the same injury.
- A person who voluntarily consents to participate in an unlawful prizefight is generally barred from recovering for injuries resulting from that encounter.
- Illegality of the underlying activity does not, between voluntary participants in equal fault, create a civil right of action for injuries inherent in the agreed combat.
- A civil claim may be unavailable for mutual unlawful combat at least where the pleadings do not allege excessive force or malicious intent to inflict serious injury.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the estate could not recover for Cartwright’s death because he voluntarily participated in an illegal prizefight and the pleadings alleged no aggravating conduct such as malice or excessive force; the administrator’s wrongful-death claim failed because it could rise no higher than the claim Cartwright himself could have brought.


Hart v. Geysel, 159 Wash. 632, 294 P. 570 (Wash. 1930)