Hart
v. Geysel
Supreme Court of
159
Prosser,
p. 99-100
Facts: Two men fought in a prize
fight. One was killed in the course of
the fight. His estate sued the other
fighter. The action was dismissed and
the plaintiff appealed.
Issue: Can an action for wrongful
death be brought when both parties consented to the fight even though it was
unlawful?
Rule: Someone who engages in prize
fighting in
Analysis: The court considers and
rejects two rules for liability arising from injuries in a fight. The “majority rule” says that both parties
should be liable to each other even though they consented to the fight. The “minority rule” says that the combat is
unlawful and thus neither party can recover damages except in the case of “excessive
force or malicious intent”. The court decides that neither rule holds because the fight was not
entered into in anger nor was there malicious intent to cause serious
injury. The court settles on its own
rule, and reasons that you don’t need to reward the guy that got hurt more in
the fight to enforce the criminal statute against prize fighting.
Conclusion: The court affirmed the verdict
of the trial court.
Notes
and Questions
1. So there are
pros and cons to invalidating the plaintiff’s consent due to the defendant
committing a crime.
2. In each of the
following cases, did the defendant’s conduct violate a statute that is supposed
to protect the class of people to which the plaintiff belongs?
A. Statutory rape
laws are certainly designed to protect 15-year-olds. Therefore, the consent is no good. An adult woman has no such protection in the
criminal law.
B. Under the
C. I guess this
is a moot point now. The idea, however,
is that in many jurisdictions, you cannot consent to something that’s illegal.
3. Okay!