Question

Gomer played hockey for his company's team. During the playoffs, three seconds after a play, he was deliberately hit in the back with a stick by Ed, a player on the opposing team. The hit broke Gomer's rib. If Gomer sued Ed, which of the following would be true?

A)The defendant's best defense would be that the plaintiff consented to the hit.
B)The plaintiff can only sue if the hit was accidental.
C)The defendant is not responsible for intentional acts during a hockey game.
D)The plaintiff is only eligible for compensation if the hit causes severe injury.

Answer 1

Gomer possibly has a valid lawsuit for battery against Ed for the deliberate hit during a hockey game as it occurred outside the normal play, and severity of injury is not a prerequisite for legal action.

Step-by-step explanation:

If Gomer sued Ed for being hit in the back with a stick during a hockey game, several legal principles would come into play. Notably, consent is a common defense in sports-related injury cases because by participating in the sport, athletes may implicitly consent to certain types of contact inherent to the sport, albeit within the rules. However, given that the hit from Ed was deliberate and occurred three seconds after a play, this would likely be considered outside the scope of normal play. Therefore, the best defense for Ed (the defendant) would be to prove that Gomer (the plaintiff) consented to this type of hit, which seems improbable given the situation described. Instead, intentional torts, such as battery, can be pursued regardless of whether the injury was severe or not, contrary to the limitations on defamation damages outlined in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.