## Facts

- Julian Claudio Nabozny, a high-school–age soccer goalkeeper, played for Hansa in an amateur match against Winnetka.
- During play, a Hansa teammate passed the ball back to Nabozny in the penalty area.
- Nabozny went down on one knee, received the pass, and pulled the ball to his chest, placing him in possession as goalkeeper.
- David Barnhill, a Winnetka forward pursuing the ball, continued toward Nabozny and kicked him on the left side of the head.
- Nabozny suffered severe head injuries.
- Evidence and expert testimony indicated the governing rules prohibited contacting a goalkeeper in possession in the penalty area and that Barnhill had time and opportunity to avoid contact.

## Issues

1. Whether participants in an organized athletic contest owe a legal duty to refrain from conduct that violates safety rules intended to prevent serious injury.
2. Whether the trial court properly directed a verdict for the defendant on the grounds that the defendant was not negligent as a matter of law and the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the directed verdict for Barnhill and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that participants in organized sports are not immune from tort liability for conduct that violates safety rules aimed at preventing serious injury.
- The court held that contributory negligence was for the jury on this record.
- Applying the directed-verdict standard, the court concluded reasonable jurors could find Barnhill acted with reckless disregard by violating the goalkeeper-contact rule.

## Legal Principles

- Players in organized athletic competition owe other participants a duty to refrain from conduct proscribed by safety rules designed to prevent serious injury.
- A participant generally consents to ordinary risks inherent in vigorous, rule-compliant play, but not to unreasonable risks created by deliberate, willful, or reckless safety-rule violations.
- A directed verdict is improper when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the nonmovant, a contrary verdict could stand on that evidence.
- Whether an injured participant was contributorily negligent is ordinarily a fact question when the participant’s conduct conforms to the sport’s rules and customary play.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated the negligence claim for jury determination, holding that sports participants may be liable for injuries caused by deliberate or reckless violations of safety rules and that neither lack of duty nor contributory negligence was established as a matter of law on the presented evidence.


Nabozny v. Barnhill, 334 N.E.2d 258 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)