Everyone who involved in sports and recreation are always become the subject which involve level risk of injury. There is no sport situation without zero risk. However, the level of risk are avoidable and it can be minimised. Even participant in sport is an inherently risky business and many injuries and even death do occur. It is only possible to take action in court if there is a breach of the Duty of Care and it is often the case that such a breach occurs when something has been missed or overlooked or broken especially the rule of the game for the participants. Clearly, it can be seen that everyone involved in this field including the persons in an official capacity and the person who participate in the sports have a duty to make all activities …show more content…
In this case, both of the parties are the football players. During the match the plaintiff suffered a broken leg which a tackle done by defendant and it was made in a dangerous and reckless manner. Since both of the parties are football players therefore they were professes to have skilled and expertise in football sport. That was the reasons they had been judged as against other persons who possess the same skill. Eventhough it may be said that a football player should be assumed the risk of injury, but the defendant was in breach of duty as his act with a reckless disregard for the safety of the plaintiff. As a reasonable person or player, although there was foreseeability of any kind of injuries may happen or even sufficient proximity between the parties as both of them a football player competing in the same area but the defendant should considered his duty during the match to behave and control his movement in order to produce fair play not cause injury to other player by his rough manner. In this context, it considered as the standard of care was objective and matched the circumstances. Even according to the Bawrick CJ in Rootes v Shelton case, he said that any duties or breaches are depend on the circumstances of individual case during the event happened. As player, defendant has fell below the normal and expected standards he should expect to be held liable. Therefore, it is fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty of care towards the defendant as the defendant’s conduct was out of the game’s