## Facts

- Guy C. Hudson, age 18, attended a carnival where defendants operated a boxing exhibition concession for which a separate admission fee was charged.
- Defendants staged boxing bouts offering prizes and prize money without the required State Athletic Commission license and without compliance with statutory and regulatory safety requirements.
- Defendants solicited Hudson to box and promised to pay him $5 to participate.
- Hudson entered a bout and suffered injuries when struck by his opponent.
- Hudson and his father sued the carnival operators, alleging statutory violations governing boxing exhibitions and seeking damages, including medical expenses.

## Issues

1. Whether promoters who stage an unlicensed boxing exhibition in violation of protective statutes may be held liable for injuries to a participating boxer who voluntarily consented to fight.
2. Whether a participant’s consent bars recovery when the defendants violated statutes designed to protect participants from the type of harm suffered.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer.
- The court held the complaint stated a cause of action against the promoters/operators of the boxing concession.
- The court concluded Hudson’s consent to participate did not bar recovery against defendants because the contest was conducted in violation of statutes enacted to protect participants.
- The court limited its holding to promoter liability and did not decide the liability, if any, between the two boxers.

## Legal Principles

- Consent is not a complete defense where the defendant’s conduct violates a statute enacted to protect the plaintiff’s class from the type of injury that occurred.
- When a regulatory scheme imposes licensing and safety requirements for dangerous activities, a promoter who organizes and profits from an unlawful, unlicensed event may be liable for resulting participant injuries.
- Statutory violations aimed at participant safety can render assumption-of-risk and consent arguments ineffective as to the regulated promoter or organizer.

## Conclusion

Because California’s boxing statutes were intended to protect participants through licensing and safety oversight, promoters who solicited and staged an unlicensed prizefight could be held liable for injuries to an 18-year-old participant despite his voluntary agreement to box, and dismissal on demurrer was improper.


Hudson v. Craft, 33 Cal. 2d 654, 204 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1949)