Hudson v Craft

Fact pattern and procedural history

Defendant arranged and promoted an illegal prizefight in which the plaintiff was a willing participant. The plaintiff suffered injuries and sued defendant and his opponent, though failed to serve his opponent. Dismissed by trial court.

Questions of law

Can a third party who encourages or arranges for injury to another be held liable for battery? Does the consent of the victim have any effect? Is the legality of a prize fight an element?

Finding

The court reversed, holding that the illegality of the fight promotion rendered the defendant promoter liable for plaintiff’s injuries regardless of whether the plaintiff could have successfully sued his opponent. The court invoked reference to strict liability and cited numerous statutes and legislative declarations concerning the proper management and administration of legal prize fights. Because the fight was illegal, the question of consent or assumption of risk was moot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s