## 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.


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