A High Court judge has said that sport cannot be immune from the law of negligence after finding in favour of a woman rugby player injured by a revenge tackle from an aggressive opponent.
Mr Justice Martin Spencer said the defendant in Czernuszka v King should be found liable for spinal injuries suffered by the claimant Dani Czernuszka, a 28-year-old mother of two who is now paraplegic and uses a wheelchair.
A negligence finding from a sporting incident is relatively rare, and the judge stressed that injuries were generally an accepted risk of sport, especially a contact sport such as rugby.
But he set out a series of factors which set this case apart, including the retribution being sought by the defendant and the dangerous elements of the tackle.
The court heard that the teams, Bracknell Ladies and the newly-formed Sirens, met in October 2017 in the first match of a ‘developmental’ league which was designed for women learning rugby. The match was recorded in full. The defendant Natasha King, the Bracknell captain, was said to be ‘far too good’ for the level of the game she was playing and ‘played explosively and threw her weight around’.
The judge said the level of ‘trash talk’ from the defendant’s team reflected the sides’ different attitudes and approaches, with the majority of the Sirens players still learning the basics of the game. It was claimed that the defendant at one point threatened to ‘smash’ her opponents and called them ‘c***s’.
Czernuszka, who was 5ft 3ins and weighed nine stone, had displayed speed, skill and resilience during the match and was ‘impervious’ to whatever the Bracknell players threw at her. The judge said that King, who was over 16 stone, became increasingly frustrated as the game went on as attempts to dominate the play and intimidate Sirens players failed.
Around the hour mark, King was legitimately tackled by the claimant and said the words: ‘That f***ing number seven [Czernuszka], I’m going to break her’.
The judge noted: ‘Thereafter, she was looking for an opportunity to get her revenge on the claimant: the red mist had metaphorically descended over the defendant’s eyes.’
Three minutes later, Czernuszka crouched to pick up the ball and King, with eyes only on her opponent, ‘launched herself at the claimant, who was obviously bent over in a highly vulnerable position, unsuspecting and unprepared to protect herself’.
The judge said the tackle was executed ‘with reckless disregard for the claimant’s safety in a manner which was liable to cause injury and that the defendant was so angry by this time that she closed her eyes to the risk to which she was subjecting the claimant, a risk of injury which was clear and obvious’.
King was found to have done ‘exactly as she set out to do’ and despite her opponent lying prostrate on the ground and obviously injured, she walked away ‘apparently unconcerned for the claimant and for what she had done’.
Judgment was found for the claimant and an assessment of damages will now be made.
