Question

During a professional hockey game, Winston, a player for the Rush, collides with Bowzer, a player for the Eagles and falls, hitting his head hard against the ice. Dazed, Winston tells his coach that he thinks he might have a concussion. The coach orders him to “man up” and get back in the game. Winston suffers a second collision with Bowzer and is removed from the game unconscious. He is later diagnosed with a brain injury.

Brett, who also plays for the Rush, watches Winston being removed from the game unconscious. As soon as his teammate is off the ice, Brett swings his stick at Bowzer but misses. Bowzer then jumps Brett and slams him into the ice. Reid, another Rush player, then cross-checks Bowzer and kicks him on the top of the helmet.

Which tort(s) did Bowzer commit, if any? Which tort(s) did Brett commit, if any? Which tort(s) did Reid commit, if any? What are the elements of each tort that you think has been committed and how to the elements apply to each of the individual’s actions? Are there any defenses to any of the actions? If so, why do you think these defenses apply?

Answer 1

1. When considering the given case the tort committed by the Bowzer is the intentional tort. He slams Mr. Brett intentionally into Ice. He has also committed unintentional tort as he collided unintentionally with Winston which caused brain injury for him.

2. Mr. Brett committed the tort of assault through swinging the hockey stick at Mr. Bowzer. He intentionally tried to injure Mr. Brett to take revenge.

Some of the elements of this assault is that the act was an intentional act in order to hurt him or to take revenge which can cause some reasonable apprehensions. This highlights an harmful action and can be considered as an offensive contact.

The defense which this assault can take is that in the hockey game collision can happen. Injuries are common in this game and the team members enter in to this sport through agreeing accepting these injuries which may happen.

3. The tort of Mr. Reid also intentional tort as he kicked the helmet of Bowzer in order to protect or to defense the action of the Bowzer. His tort can be classified into the tort of battery. Here he cross checks Bowzer and then hits him which highlights the intentional action to hurt him.

The elements of this battery act are the intentional act, cross checking, action being harmful etc. The consent can be the same that in the games like hockey the injuries can happen.

Answer 2

Based on the given scenario, let's analyze the potential torts committed by each individual and the elements involved:

1. Bowzer: a) Battery: Bowzer commits the tort of battery when he slams Brett into the ice. The elements of battery typically include:

• Intentional act: Bowzer intentionally slams Brett into the ice.

• Harmful or offensive contact: Bowzer's actions result in harmful contact with Brett.

2. Brett: a) Assault: Brett may be considered to have committed the tort of assault when he swings his stick at Bowzer. The elements of assault usually include:

• Intentional act: Brett intentionally swings his stick at Bowzer.

• Apprehension of immediate harmful or offensive contact: Brett's action creates a reasonable apprehension in Bowzer that he will be struck by the swing.

3. Reid: a) Battery: Reid may have committed the tort of battery when he cross-checks Bowzer and kicks him on the top of the helmet. The elements of battery are the same as mentioned above for Bowzer.

Defenses:

1. Bowzer's defense: Bowzer may argue self-defense as a defense against the torts of battery committed by Brett and Reid. He can claim that he acted reasonably to protect himself from the imminent harm caused by their actions.

2. Brett's defense: Brett may argue self-defense as a defense against the potential tort of assault. He can claim that he swung his stick in response to the initial aggression by Bowzer.

3. Reid's defense: Reid may also argue self-defense as a defense against the potential tort of battery. He can claim that his actions were a reasonable response to Bowzer's aggressive behavior and the protection of himself or his teammate.

It's important to note that the specific application of tort law and defenses can vary based on jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case. Legal advice from a qualified attorney should be sought to determine the precise legal implications and potential defenses in a real-world situation.