Australia: Liability Of Sporting Bodies & Players

Last Updated: 15 April 2008
Article by David Randazzo

Two recent NSW decisions further clarify the liability of sporting bodies and participants for injuries sustained in the course of play.

McCracken v Melbourne Storm Rugby League FC & Ors [2007] NSWCA 353


Jarrod McCracken, a high profile rugby league player, had his career cut short on 12 May 2000 as a result of injuries sustained in a 'spear tackle' whilst playing for Wests Tigers against the Melbourne Storm (the Storm).

According to the evidence, Stephen Kearney and Marcus Bai, both Storm players (and employees) were responsible for the spear tackle, which involved lifting McCracken's legs off the ground, raising him into the air, turning him around so that his head was below his legs and dropping him head first onto the ground. This resulted in McCracken suffering serious neck injuries, which prevented him from playing rugby league ever again. At the time of the injury, the rules of rugby league prohibited spear tackles from being carried out.

McCracken filed proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court against Kearney, Bai and the Storm, alleging that the tackle was carried out in a negligent fashion. He further claimed that Storm, as the employer of Kearney and Bai, was vicariously liable.


Justice Hulme found in favour of McCracken and held that McCracken's injuries were caused by the negligent tackle. His Honour awarded $90,000 in general damages and $1,000 for future out of pocket expenses. His Honour rejected McCracken's claim for loss of earning capacity.


McCracken appealed Justice Hulme's findings in relation to loss of earning capacity for loss incurred prior to the trial. The defendants cross appealed, maintaining that the tackle was not carried out negligently. It is convenient to first deal with the cross appeal given this raises issues of liability.

At trial and at the appeal, the defendants maintained that Kearney and Bai approached McCracken from opposite sides and, although each tackled him virtually simultaneously, each was not aware of the other, each acted in accordance with the laws of the game and what occurred was an unfortunate accident.

In dismissing the cross appeal, reference was made to the evidence of an expert, Warren Ryan, who testified that in executing the tackle, the Storm players 'used unreasonably dangerous methods which would be regarded by virtually all NRL coaches, NRL judiciary and any experienced observers of the game as unreasonably dangerous and which the players...could and should have avoided'.

Reference was also made to the fact that Kearney and Bai were both charged by the Australian Rugby League (ARL) for the incident and pleaded guilty to 'making a dangerous throw and effecting the tackle'.

While noting that the expert evidence and guilty pleas were relevant, the Court of Appeal (Ipp JA, with Beazley JA and Basten JA agreeing), held that 'in the end, the issue of liability must be determined largely by this Court's impression of what the video recording reveals'. On this front, the Court had little difficulty in finding that the 'tackle constituted a gross infringement of the laws of the game and there was no modicum of care in the actions of Kearney and Bai'.

In an interesting aside, the Court commented on the way in which the case was pleaded having regard to tort law reform provisions which purport to limit entitlement to damages except in the case of an intentional act (as opposed to negligence). Ultimately, nothing turned on this issue for underlying factual reasons. However, in a warning to prospective litigants, the Court made reference to the joint judgment of Gummow and Hayne JJ in NSW v Lepore [2003] HCA 4:

'...Negligently inflicted injury to the person can, in at least some circumstances, be pleaded as trespass to the person, but the intentional infliction of harm cannot be pleaded as negligence...'

In dismissing McCracken's appeal in relation to damages for loss of earning capacity, the Court of Appeal adopted Justice Hulme's findings that McCracken earned far more through his business ventures following the injury than he would have had he not been injured.

Green v Country Rugby Football League of NSW [2008] NSWSC 26

On 7 May 2004, Green, a 16 year old school boy, suffered devastating spinal injuries (tetraplegia) in a 'scrum' while playing in the position of 'hooker' for the Laurieton Reserves against the Old Bar Pirates team, in a game administered by Country Rugby Football.

Green issued proceedings against a number of parties in the NSW Supreme Court, including his coach, the referee of the game in question and his Club. The proceedings against all defendants other than the Country Rugby Football League (CRFL) were either settled or abandoned before and during the first week of trial. CRFL was left to defend the case on its own.

The allegations

Following is a summary of Green's allegations against CRFL:

  • Given his young age, slight build, low weight and long thin neck, CRFL should have ensured that Green was not selected to play in the position of hooker particularly as Green was playing in an open age category where he was opposite players who were much larger and stronger than himself.
  • CRFL had sole responsibility for organising and controlling rugby league in country NSW and by exercising powers it had to regulate the game, CRFL should have insisted that its constituent bodies, such as the club Green played for, not permit players with Green's physical characteristics to play in the position of hooker.
  • CRFL should have used its rule making powers to change the way scrums are conducted, with less physical contact ('depowering').
  • The Club's knowledge of Green's physical characteristics was also CRFL's knowledge, through principles of agency law.
  • CRFL should have warned and or advised Green of the risks involved in playing in the front row for people with his physical characteristics.
  • CRFL should have advised Green to carry out neck strengthening exercises, which would have reduced his chances of suffering injury.

CRFL denied it owed Green a duty of care, noting that it did not even know of his existence. Further, it contended that in the rugby league structure, its roles were limited to the following:

  • Acting as a conduit for the expression of concerns between its constituent members and the NSW Rugby League (NSWRL) and ARL.
  • Acting as a conduit for information to clubs in the country from NSWRL and ARL.
  • Permitting country clubs to form geographically based groups for the conduct of games and inter-club competitions.

In addition, CRFL raised, among others, the following defences at trial:

  • Any rule it made restricting players of certain physical attributes from playing in the front row would not be enforceable.
  • It did not have sufficient resources to enforce such a rule. There were no existing standards in any case which could be used to determine the suitability of a player.
  • Green was under no obligation to play the game. He consented to participating in a game in which physical force would be used. In this regard, rugby league is renowned for its risks of serious injury.
  • Green's own expert specialist rehabilitation physician, Professor Yeo, was of the view that Green's physique made him suitable to play in the front row, including in open age games.
  • If any breach was found, Green voluntarily assumed the risk of serious spinal injury.


Justice Walmsley found that CRFL did know of Green (through player registration forms and the like) but that it had no knowledge of Green's physical characteristics. While the Club had an agency to receive and pass player registration forms to CRFL, 'the agency's scope did not extend beyond that to imputed knowledge of any of the plaintiff's bodily characteristics'.

Duty of care

On the duty of care issue, Justice Walmsley first dismissed the claim that CRFL owed Green a non-delegable duty of care. In this regard, he noted that the relationship between Green and CRFL could not satisfy the criteria set out in Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672 (see also Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery [2007] HCA 6).

As to whether CRFL owed a general duty of care to Green, Justice Walmsley found that such a duty did exist. He made reference to the following evidence:

  • CRFL was ultimately responsible for administering the sport in country NSW.
  • CRFL had power to disallow groups and clubs from amending their bylaws.
  • CRFL arranged insurance for all players.
  • CRFL was responsible for training coaches and, further, was aware that some coaches had not undertaken training courses.
  • CRFL knew that a number of players playing in open age competitions were under the age of 18.
  • CRFL knew that front row players with slight physiques and long, thin necks were playing in the front row.

Justice Walmsley also noted that for a duty of care to exist, a defendant need not know of the plaintiff's existence.


Having found that CRFL did owe Green a duty of care, Justice Walmsley went on to consider whether Green's injuries were caused by a breach of that duty. He did so by analysing Green's allegations of negligence and ultimately decided that CRFL had not breached its duty for the following reasons:

  • If it had chosen to, CRFL could have made rules to enhance the safety of young players. This included rules for the 'depowering' of scrums. However, depowering had occurred gradually between the late 1980s and 1996 (when depowering was finally introduced) without rule changes. Further, CRFL would have had some difficulties (including financial) with NSWRL if it had introduced the rule change unilaterally. Finally, reference was made to the difficulties in formulating rule changes in the context of an admittedly dangerous activity, and in particular, where the line should be drawn (see Agar v Hyde (2001) 201 CLR 552).
  • CRFL's omission to insist on medical examinations to determine the suitability of a player to play in the front row did not amount to a breach of duty. There was no evidence of any other organisation involved with the game insisting on such examinations and the implementation of such a regime would 'come at some expense'. There would also be difficulties when it came to assessing people with borderline physiques.
  • CRFL's system in place at the time for warning players about the risks of neck injuries (relying on the coaching system, development officers and management committee systems) was appropriate having regard to CRFL's financial constraints.
  • It was appropriate for CRFL to leave decisions regarding which player was to play in a certain position to the clubs and coaches.
  • There was no obligation on CRFL to warn players or parents about the risk of spinal injuries to players with Green's physique. In any event, His Honour formed the view that Green would still have played even if such a warning had been given.
  • There was no requirement on CRFL to ensure that all coaches had attended accreditation courses. Once again, lack of resources was raised in favour of the defendant.

Given Green failed to establish breach against CRFL, there was no need for Justice Walmsley to consider CRFL's voluntary assumption of risk defence.

While very little was said directly in his judgment, Justice Walmsley may have ruled in favour of Green if some of the other defendants, such as his club and coach, had been the subject of a verdict.


Green highlights difficulties faced by injured plaintiffs who issue proceedings against sporting bodies for failure to implement or amend particular rules that would or may have resulted in a safer playing situation. As noted by Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ in Agar:

'[W]hy should the law-makers be liable when the player who inflicted the injury is not? If the laws of the game define the conduct to which an adult participant consents, the law-makers should not be liable because they could have made the activity that the participant chose to undertake less dangerous. The absurdity of this proposition is highlighted by the fact that, in many activities, the danger is part of the activity's attraction.'

On the other hand, McCracken highlights the difficulty in defending sporting participants who have acted negligently and in obvious breach of the sporting body's rules. Given many matches, both amateur and professional, are now taped, video recordings will no doubt prove more popular in the courtroom in assisting a judge or jury in determining whether a player's conduct amounts to negligence.

Phillips Fox has changed its name to DLA Phillips Fox because the firm entered into an exclusive alliance with DLA Piper, one of the largest legal services organisations in the world. We will retain our offices in every major commercial centre in Australia and New Zealand, with no operational change to your relationship with the firm. DLA Phillips Fox can now take your business one step further − by connecting you to a global network of legal experience, talent and knowledge.

This publication is intended as a first point of reference and should not be relied on as a substitute for professional advice. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to any particular circumstances and no liability will be accepted for any losses incurred by those relying solely on this publication.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.