SPORT EXTERNAL INTERFERENCE AND LEGISLATION

Sport External Interference And Legislation

Sport External Interference And Legislation

Modern professional sports are an industry of staggering financial size. Players, owners, agents, retailers and cities all derive substantial revenue from professional sports. Sports officials play perhaps the most important role supporting professional sports, yet they receive little to no attention until they have in fact erred, or the fans perceive error. An official's error can cause a professional team significant monetary harm.4 Liability of a professional sports referee, sometimes referred to as referee malpractice, has received significant academic commentary. However, while tort liability for referee malpractice is firmly grounded in negligence theory, jurisdictions differ as to the appropriate standard of care placed on referees. The current prevailing standard appears to be ordinary negligence.

Standard defenses to negligence may present a bar to recovery. Contributory negligence, assumption of risk and lack of causation may all prove fatal to a claim. Numerous states have granted sports officials qualified tort immunity to civil suit. When present, qualified immunity jurisdictions require a showing beyond simple negligence before liability is found. Rather, qualified immunity jurisdictions require a showing of either “recklessness” or “gross negligence” before the courts will recognize a claim for negligent officiating.7 Qualified immunity statutes generally refer to liability for physical harm sustained during athletic contests, as opposed to financial harm resulting from an improper call.

Regardless of the standard of care, to recover for an action sounding in negligence, the standard tort elements must be demonstrated: duty, breach, causation, and harm. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the “referee's conduct deviated from a required standard of care and that such a deviation resulted in a different outcome for the game.

Duty

Before liability can attach to a sports official, breach of an affirmative duty must be demonstrated.10 Duty arises in the context of sports officiating given statutes, common law,11 or an “implied contractual obligation to officiate competently.”12 The job of a sports official is to “possess and implement adequate knowledge of the rules and their application.” To determine if a prospective plaintiff possesses interests which are entitled to legal protection, i.e., whether the referee owes them a duty, courts consider many factors. Specifically, courts consider: the foreseeability of harm; the degree of certainty that plaintiff has suffered the alleged harm; the closeness of connection between the referee's alleged misconduct and potential injury; any existing policy preventing future harm; and the external consequences of placing the burden of liability upon the defendant. The factors balance both public policy interests and the practical implications of allowing sports official liability. It is likely the “duty” prong of the negligence inquiry is satisfied by explicit reliance on the referee as an impartial and competent on-field arbiter.

Breach

Once a duty has been found to exist, a prospective plaintiff must establish breach. Breach is commonly defined as a “failure to perform a duty or 'failure to exercise that care which a reasonable [person] would exercise under similar situations. If this duty is breached, only the non-breaching party is in ...