scholarly journals Liability of Referees: An Analysis of Tort Liability for Wrong Referee Decisions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Stefanie Koch
Keyword(s):  
Professional Sports ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Professional Sport ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Huge Amount ◽  
Financial Situation ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Business Approach ◽  
Rules Of The Game

<p>In an increasing professional sports world, the referees in key tournaments and games have huge responsibility. Their decisions can impact not only on the game but on all the commercial interests involved in that game. This raises the issue of the liability of referees according to tort law. The main problems of liability of referees are the circumstances they work in. They have often only a split-second to make important decisions in the course of a game. The responsibility of a referee is so high that they can determine if a team wins or loses. These decisions can impact on the outcome of a game and consequently affect the financial situation of the clubs, sponsors and sportspeople. If a team is eliminated from a tournament they lose a huge amount of money. There are two legal aspects to consider. One is intention, where a referee might get involved in deliberate match-fixing, and another is negligence. Are match officials liable for their malpractice? Often a referee is not liable for lost chances because there is no causality that the team lost the game only because of a wrong referee decisions. For want of evidence the referee is in most cases not liable. However, is this right? The main thesis of this paper is that there is a liability of referees who act with intention. Referees who influence results negligently should be covered by immunity. However, sports governing body as guardians of the rules of the game should have some liability. They have a usual duty to ensure that a referee is able to manage the game and have it under control. Sports governing bodies may have vicarious liability for referee decisions as they use referees to fulfil their obligations of organising and running tournaments. The business approach of modern professional sport has added to the duties of sports governing bodies. Hence sports governing bodies have an added responsibility to ensure that all resources to support the referee and the rules - such as technical or assistant support - are utilized. These special duties need to be followed and can make sports governing bodies liable.</p>

scholarly journals Liability of Referees: An Analysis of Tort Liability for Wrong Referee Decisions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Stefanie Koch
Keyword(s):  
Professional Sports ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Legal Aspects ◽  
Professional Sport ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Huge Amount ◽  
Financial Situation ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Business Approach ◽  
Rules Of The Game

<p>In an increasing professional sports world, the referees in key tournaments and games have huge responsibility. Their decisions can impact not only on the game but on all the commercial interests involved in that game. This raises the issue of the liability of referees according to tort law. The main problems of liability of referees are the circumstances they work in. They have often only a split-second to make important decisions in the course of a game. The responsibility of a referee is so high that they can determine if a team wins or loses. These decisions can impact on the outcome of a game and consequently affect the financial situation of the clubs, sponsors and sportspeople. If a team is eliminated from a tournament they lose a huge amount of money. There are two legal aspects to consider. One is intention, where a referee might get involved in deliberate match-fixing, and another is negligence. Are match officials liable for their malpractice? Often a referee is not liable for lost chances because there is no causality that the team lost the game only because of a wrong referee decisions. For want of evidence the referee is in most cases not liable. However, is this right? The main thesis of this paper is that there is a liability of referees who act with intention. Referees who influence results negligently should be covered by immunity. However, sports governing body as guardians of the rules of the game should have some liability. They have a usual duty to ensure that a referee is able to manage the game and have it under control. Sports governing bodies may have vicarious liability for referee decisions as they use referees to fulfil their obligations of organising and running tournaments. The business approach of modern professional sport has added to the duties of sports governing bodies. Hence sports governing bodies have an added responsibility to ensure that all resources to support the referee and the rules - such as technical or assistant support - are utilized. These special duties need to be followed and can make sports governing bodies liable.</p>

Behavioral Economics and Tort Law

2014 ◽  
pp. 404-437
Author(s):  
Yoed Halbersberg ◽  
Ehud Guttel
Keyword(s):  
Tort Law ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Behavioral Studies ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Tort System ◽  
Pain And Suffering ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
People’S Perceptions

The chapter discusses the contributions of cognitive psychology and behavioral studies to the research of tort law. These contributions, we show, relate to a wide range of issues in torts: from the basic decision to impose tort liability, through the choice between liability rules, to specific rules and remedies. Accordingly, behavioral studies are of particular significance for the analysis of the tort system. The literature review focuses on contributions made to three key elements of tort law: the choice between liability regimes; the choice between tort liability and regulation (including the choice between harm-based and risk-based liability); and damages (in particular, punitive damages and damages for pain and suffering). The chapter also offers two new avenues for future research: vicarious liability and people’s perceptions of the variability among large groups of tort victims.

Structure, Function, and Tort Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-79
Author(s):  
Dan Priel
Keyword(s):  
Structure Function ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Structure And Function ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Causal Uncertainty ◽  
Popular View ◽  
And Function

AbstractA popular view among tort theorists is that an explanation of tort law must take account its “structure,” since this structure constitutes the law’s “self-understanding.” This view is used to both criticize competing functional accounts of tort law, especially economic ones, that are said to ignore tort law’s structure, and, more constructively, as a basis for explaining various tort doctrines. In this essay, I consider this argument closely and conclude that it is faulty. To be valid, one needs a non-question begging way of identifying the essence of tort law. I argue that law’s “self-understanding” can only make sense if it means the understanding of certain people. Examining those, I conclude that the claim of structuralists is false, for there are many people who take its function to be central. I then further show that if one wishes to understand the development of tort law’s doctrine one must take both structure and function into account. I demonstrate this claim by examining the development of the doctrine dealing with causal uncertainty and vicarious liability.

scholarly journals Treating Wrongs as Wrongs: An Expressive Argument for Tort Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 405-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Hershovitz
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Tort Reform ◽  
Corrective Justice ◽  
Social Standing ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
Expressive Function ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Way

AbstractThe idea that criminal punishment carries a message of condemnation is as commonplace as could be. Indeed, many think that condemnation is the mark of punishment, distinguishing it from other sorts of penalties or burdens. But for all that torts and crimes share in common, nearly no one thinks that tort has similar expressive aims. And that is unfortunate, as the truth is that tort is very much an expressive institution, with messages to send that are different, but no less important, than those conveyed by the criminal law. In this essay, I argue that tort liability expresses the judgment that the defendant wronged the plaintiff. And I explain why it is important to have an institution that expresses that judgment. I argue that we need ways of treating wrongs as wrongs, so that we can vindicate the social standing of victims. Along the way, I consider the continuity between tort and revenge, and I suggest a new way of thinking about corrective justice and the role that tort plays in dispensing it. I conclude by sketching an agenda for tort reform that would improve tort’s ability to serve its expressive function.

scholarly journals Big Data, Big Problems: Analysis of Professional Sports Leagues’ CBAs and Their Handling of Athlete Biometric Data

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-81
Author(s):  
Sarah M. Brown ◽  
Natasha T. Brison
Keyword(s):  
Athletic Performance ◽  
Professional Sports ◽  
Professional Sport ◽  
Competitive Advantages ◽  
Biometric Data ◽  
State Laws ◽  
Federal Level ◽  
Sports Leagues ◽  
Revenue Streams ◽  
Professional Sports Leagues

The use and integration of wearable technology (wearables) into professional sports is increasing rapidly. At a minimum, the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and MLS have all integrated wearables into their training. Teams’ hope the biometric data obtained from the wearables will sharpen athletic performance, create competitive advantages, enhance fan experience, and generate new revenue streams. However, to obtain these desired outcomes leagues must adequately protect their athlete’s biometric data (ABD).  The purpose of this paper is to examine and compare the CBAs of the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and MLS management of wearables and ABD. Specifically, this paper will discuss the potential gaps in protection of ABD within the CBA and explore whether federal and state laws are applicable to protect the data. Findings from this analysis improve our understanding of professional sport leagues management of ABD and expose the limitations of protection at the league, state, and federal level.

scholarly journals German Transplants in Estonian Tort Law: General Duties to Maintain Safety

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 132-139
Author(s):  
Janno Lahe
Keyword(s):  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
Remarkable Change ◽  
General Duty ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
German School ◽  
Legal Thinking ◽  
The Individual

The jurisprudence and case-law approach of German tort law – and, more broadly, German-school legal thinking in general – has found its way into Estonian case law on torts and into Estonia’s scholarly texts on jurisprudence. From among the catalogue of transplants from German tort law that have reached Estonian law or legal practice, the paper focuses on one whose importance cannot be overestimated: the concept of tort liability based on breach of the general duty to maintain safety. This domain has witnessed remarkable change since the beginning of the 2000s, when an analogous concept of liability was still unfamiliar to many Estonian lawyers. The article examines whether and to what extent the concept of liability based on the general duty to maintain safety has become recognised in Estonian legal practice in the years since. Also assessed is the relevant case law to date, for ascertainment of whether any adoption of an equivalent concept of liability has been successful and, in either event, what problems remain to be resolved. The importance of this issue extends far beyond that of individual questions: the recognition of general duties to maintain safety affects our understanding of the very structure of tort law, of that of the general composition of tort, and of the connections that link the individual prerequisites for tort liability. Furthermore, this constellation influences our thought in the field of tort law more generally and our approach to the cases emerging in real-world legal practice.

MODERN THEORIES OF WRONGFULNESS: THE SWISS APPROACH

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 219-253
Author(s):  
S.K. STEPANOV
Keyword(s):  
Tort Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Definition Of

This paper provides an overview of key concepts of wrongfulness in Tort law. The Swiss approach to the definition of wrongfulness has been analyzed. In addition, the article discusses the subjective and objective theories of wrongfulness. The author addresses the modern concepts of wrongfulness, allowing to achieve maximum flexibility in establishing tort liability.

Distribution of Risk of Harm in Delictual Responsibility From the Standpoint of Economic Analysis of Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-130
Author(s):  
Maryna Velykanova
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Risk Sharing ◽  
Basis Property ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Economic Analysis Of Law ◽  
Systematic Analysis

Damage to property and (or) non-property rights of persons occurs quite often. The right to compensation for such damage is indisputable. However, civil doctrine ambiguously addresses the issue of risk sharing in tort obligations. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to discuss approaches to the distribution of risk of harm in delictual responsibility and to determine their effectiveness from an economic and legal standpoint. The paper, based on economic and systematic analysis using dialectical, comparative, logical-dogmatic and other methods, including economics, describes the approaches to determining the purpose of tort law and its ability to ensure effective distribution of risk of harm. It has been proven that tort law can have direct regulatory consequences by restraining behaviour and sharing risks. It is concluded that the task of tort law is the optimal distribution of risk of harm between the perpetrator and the victim and to ensure the implementation of risky activities only if its social value justifies the risk. Based on the economic analysis of tort law, it has been substantiated that the distribution of the risk of damage in tort liability is carried out through the institutions of insurance and liability. Insurance is cost-effective when it comes to compensation for damage. However, only liability, in addition to the function of compensation, can also perform the function of preliminary prevention of harm. Therefore, the risk of causing harm in tort liability is mainly borne by the person who caused the damage. In obligations to compensate for damage caused by a source of increased danger, a person who on the appropriate legal basis (property rights, other property rights, contracts, leases, etc.) owns a vehicle, mechanism, other object, the use, storage or maintenance of which creates an increased danger, bears such risk even in the absence of guilt in causing harm. The grounds for imposing such risk on the victim are his intention or force majeure. It is this approach to the distribution of harm risk in tort liability that is fair and cost-effective and contributes to public well-being

O’Keeffe v. Ireland: overview and analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Gallen
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Sexual Abuse ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
European Court ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

James Gallen’s chapter reviews the case and the contributions of Adrian Hardiman and Conor O’Mahony to this book. Gallen argues that their discussion reveals the tension between the principle of subsidiarity and the right to effective protection and an effective remedy in the European Convention on Human Rights. The chapter argues that the case of O’Keeffe v Ireland also raises concerns about the European Court of Human Right methodology for the historical application of the Convention and about the interaction of Article 3 positive obligations with vicarious liability in tort. A further section examines the impact of the decision for victims of child sexual abuse and identifies that the decision provides the potential for an alternative remedy to the challenging use of vicarious liability in Irish tort law.

Law of Torts

Japanese Law ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 191-211
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Oda
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
The Law ◽  
General Provision

Tort is part of the Law of Obligations. Provisions on tort liability are found in Book Three, the Law of Obligations, of the Civil Code. There is only a single general provision on tort. The legislature expected rules to develop out of case law. A person who intentionally or negligently infringes upon others’ right or interests protected There is a body of case law which sets out details of tort law such as causation and fault. There have been cases where the shift of the burden of proof was at issue.　

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document