Alex Mckinnson Case Study

1310 Words6 Pages
The question today is whether Alex McKinnon should sue the National Rugby League for the injuries he sustained in a game last year. Well today learned colleagues, I will argue that he should not sue the NRL on the basis of negligence. First and foremost, on behalf of the National Rugby League and myself, we would like to extend our condolences for such a horrendous situation and we wish him all the best.
Representing the defence, the nature of this case regards clams that the NRL was negligent in relation to Alex’s three way tackle in a game between the Newcastle Knights and the Melbourne Storm. This tackle saw Alex come into contact with Jordan McLean, Jesse Bromwich, and Kenny Bromwich, in which he was lifted up and awkwardly landing on
…show more content…
This test involves the “suggestion that “but for” the negligent act of the defendant, the plaintiff would have not have suffered the injury” (Blay 2010.) Hence, but for the negligence of Jordan McLean lifting Alex in tackle, he would not have become permanently injured. This translates to the fact that we at NRL were not responsible for this injury and in fact did not breach the duty of care that we indirectly owed him. Rather Alex should be seeking damages from who was at fault, in this case, Mr McLean. Furthermore, as the tackle was on field, in a clear contact sport, the NRL 2015 Edition of the rule book clarifies matters regarding player misconduct – shifting the cause of Alex’s injuries to Jordan McLean. Section 15, 1a, states that “a player is guilty of misconduct if he: makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly, or carelessly” (National Rugby League…show more content…
Mr McKinnon must have, under the assumption of risk, known that there was a possibility for the risk of injury resulting in paralysis. Over data collected over a period of six years, showed that a total of 12 players in the rugby league code [1997 – 2002] have suffered from spinal injuries (Carmody D, 2005.) This assumes that Alex must have known the possible risks and under the Civil Liability Act 2002, section 5G, “injured persons presumed to be aware of obvious risks.” Thus resulting in the assumption that he knew what could happen in such a high contact sport. Once again, this can be seen in the case Cafest v. Tombleson [2003] NSWCA 210. In this case Julianne Tombleson went roller-skating and broke her right wrist, claiming that she was not properly informed of the risks involved with the activity. However, the court found that there was a myriad of pre-emptive warnings to skaters such as highly visible signs that stated protection gear available for hire and that the rink centre will not be held legally liable to any injuries that may be sustained. This confirms and rectifies the concept of volenti non fit injuria. If the risks are clearly set out and known, one could not claim negligence for compensation, relating to the fact that Alex indisputably would have realised the potential

    More about Alex Mckinnson Case Study

      Open Document