Simms v Leigh Rugby Football Club Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 923

Facts

  • The plaintiff was a rugby player who sustained injuries during a match.
  • The defendant, another player, was accused of causing the injury through negligent or reckless conduct.
  • The plaintiff argued that the defendant had breached a duty of care, resulting in the injury.
  • The defendant claimed the defense of volenti non fit injuria, asserting the plaintiff had impliedly consented to risks natural in rugby.
  • The court examined the circumstances of the injury, including the nature of the tackle and whether it aligned with the rules of the game.
  • It was found that the tackle, though forceful, was within the normal bounds of play.
  • The court concluded the plaintiff, by participating, had accepted the risks associated with such actions.

Issues

  1. Whether, by participating in rugby, the plaintiff had impliedly consented to the natural risks of the sport, including injury resulting from other players' actions.
  2. Whether the actions of the defendant fell within the scope of what is considered normal and acceptable conduct in rugby.
  3. Whether the defense of volenti non fit injuria negated the defendant’s liability for the plaintiff’s injury.

Decision

  • The court held that rugby, as a contact sport, by its nature involves risks, including injury from tackling.
  • It was determined that participants are presumed to understand and accept these risks when choosing to engage in the sport.
  • The conduct of the defendant was deemed consistent with the accepted norms and rules of rugby.
  • The plaintiff was found to have impliedly consented to the risk of injury from actions within the normal scope of the sport.
  • The defense of volenti non fit injuria was upheld, and the defendant was not held liable.

Legal Principles

  • The doctrine of volenti non fit injuria precludes compensation where a plaintiff voluntarily assumes known risks, particularly in contact sports.
  • Implied consent applies to injuries arising from conduct that is within the standard rules and normal play of the sport.
  • Only conduct that exceeds the accepted norms of the sport or is intentional or reckless may fall outside the scope of implied consent and give rise to liability.
  • The duty of care owed by participants in contact sports is modified by the level of risk naturally present in those activities.

Conclusion

The judgment in Simms v Leigh RFC established that participants in contact sports such as rugby are taken to have impliedly consented to the natural risks of the game, thus limiting liability for injuries occurring within accepted norms and rules. This principle has since been influential in delineating the boundaries of liability in sports-related injury cases.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal