LES4001A

Law and Ethics for Sports

Continuous Assessment
Individual Written Assignment
For Higher Diploma in Sports Coaching (HT114105)
Name：NG HOIYAN(200385630) Class：1E

First of all, I think Jack's mother can get part of the claim
for Jack's leg injury. Football itself has the risk of confrontation
and personal danger. It is very likely that personal injury
occurs. As the players participating in football matches, they
should be aware of such risks. Participating in sports itself is a
kind of voluntary risk-taking behavior. For those who
voluntarily organize and voluntarily participate in sports, they
do not intentionally cause personal injury However, in order to
balance the interests of both parties, Martin can only pay part
of the compensation to Jack.
There are three kinds of imputation principles of tort
liability: the principle of fault liability, the principle of no fault
liability and the principle of fairness. Specifically, the principle
of fault liability refers to the subjective fault of the actor for the
occurrence of damage results; the principle of no fault liability
is applicable to cases with special provisions of law, under the
category of no fault liability principle, it is not based on the
fault of the actor, but based on the injured customer According
to the causal relationship between the actor's behavior and
the danger of the person and the object and the damage
consequence, the victim does not need to prove that the
perpetrator has subjective fault for the increased liability for
compensation stipulated by law; the principle of fairness refers
to that both parties to the damage have no fault for the
occurrence of the damage result, but the victim's loss is
obviously unfair and can not be compensated This case
belongs to no fault liability. According to Jack's damage
whether there is fault, Martin and Andy may need to bear
compensation liability. In this incident, Jack was injured in the
football game. According to the law of daily life experience,
sports itself will have a certain degree of cold insurance, and
the minors participating in sports activities may not be able to
predict In sports, physical contact or physical injury with
others, so that the victim can not prove the intentional
existence of the other party, does not constitute infringement.
It should be pointed out that whether there is a fault can not be
simply measured by whether it is illegal, because even if other
people violate the rules, it does not mean that the perpetrator
has the intention to intentionally hurt the other party.
For the personal injury in sports activities, in principle, the
actor should not share the loss. Considering that the victim
has no certain foresight for the possible risks of participating in
sports activities, the damage occurs in the occasion of sports
activities, the means and behavior channels of the actor.
However, if the actor seriously violates the sports rules in
sports activities, the damage consequences are particularly
serious In the case of the victim's loss, compensation can be
made according to the principle of fairness, and the specific
standard should be determined according to the situation of
the loss.
Jack was injured when he took part in the school league
tournament. Andy, as a coach, has a certain degree of security
obligations in this competition. As a coach with considerable
knowledge and experience, he should pay attention to the
duty. Generally speaking, as the organizer of the event, he
should pay reasonable attention to the selection of venue, the
prediction of activity risk, accident relief, etc However, Andy
did not check whether Jack had put on safety protection
before the football match. Therefore, Jack's mother could
consider whether he could get compensation from this angle.
In the case of negligence claim against other players such
as football, if there is physical contact, the standard of relative
possibility should be adopted to prove that the defendant has
the duty of care to the plaintiff, and violates the responsibility,
resulting in the plaintiff's injury. However, it is not easy to
successfully claim against the participants. Andy may also be
due to Jack's poor football guidance, or Jack's technology is
not enough guidance. For example, in case number: DCPI
1766 / 2015, the mother pointed out that the coach's
negligence led to the son's injury, and finally failed to claim
compensation. In the judge's judgment, the defendant's
evidence was reasonable. On the contrary, the plaintiff did not
know much about his son's participation in football activities,
mostly hearsay evidence and her inference. The judge said
that the plaintiff's eye injury was unfortunate, but the injury did
not necessarily mean that someone should be responsible for
the incident From the beginning to the end, the plaintiff did not
explain what reasonable steps or measures were taken to
investigate the responsibility of the first defendant, who was
only one of the participants.