Special Feature - The Gordon Watson Trial
A. Background to the case.
Former Bradford City striker Gordon Watson suffered a double fracture of his right leg following a challenge by Huddersfield Town defender Kevin Gray during a Division 1 match in February 1997.
Watson was Bradford City's record signing at the time of the incident, after he had moved from Southampton in a £550,000 deal.
The fourth minute tackle during a 1-1 draw at Valley Parade, in what was only his third game for the Club, led to Watson undergoing emergency surgery in which he required a 6 inch plate and 7 screws inserted into his leg.
Following five further operations, he missed the remainder of the 1996/97 season, the entire 1997/98 campaign and he only managed a handful of starting appearances in the 1998/99 season before his contract came to an end.
He was represented by Hammond Suddards Solicitors at Leeds High Court in October 1998, where he succeeded in becoming only the second player in the history of the game to prove negligence against another player and vicarious liability against that player's club.
B. Legal principle
To succeed in his claim for negligence, Mr. Justice Hooper found that Gordon Watson had to prove:-
"On the balance of probabilities that a reasonable player would have known that in challenging in such a manner there was a significant risk of serious injury."
Evidence was given by the Referee, Assistant Referees, players and ex-players, including Chris Waddle and Trevor Cherry, the then Managers of the two Clubs namely, Chris Kamara and Brian Horton and expert witnesses including Jimmy Hill.
Furthermore video footage taken from 7 different angles was shown. The judge accepted that a reasonable player would have known that the challenge in question carried a significant risk of serious injury, and therefore found Gray and Huddersfield Town liable for Watson's losses.
C. Amount of compensation
Quantification of the damages awarded to sporting professionals, in particular those at the top of their profession is very difficult, as it involves a good deal of speculation of the Claimant's future earnings. Damages will include provision for the loss of post/future earnings, for pain and suffering and loss of amenity.
In a separate trial for quantum of damages, Mr. Justice Taylor, at the High Court in Newcastle in May 1999, awarded a sum in excess of £950,000 to Watson. This included £202,643 for Watson's past loss of earnings and £730,500 for future earnings on the basis that he judged Watson would probably have joined a Premiership side.
D. Current position
At the time of the award, there was a general concern within football, that such sports injury cases may open the floodgates to other claims. Concern was raised over the number of cases which were being brought before the Courts with the Defendants ranging from Referees to teachers and even to the governing bodies. In recent times however, the floodgates have not opened to the feared extent, although claims continue to be brought.
It is true that the principles established in the Watson case will provide a yardstick in future legal actions and in particular, give an indication as to the level of care which players are required to show one another on the field of play.
There is the belief, held by many people, that in any contact sport such as football, injuries are part and parcel of the game and those people would advocate that contact sports remain as such.
Nevertheless player protection is a crucial element of any game and an individual sportsman should not lose his rights merely because he steps onto a field of play. What should not be forgotten is that sportsmen are mebers of the public and should enjoy the same level of protection that is afforded to all.
E. Alternative Schemes
It is known that the governing bodies of association football (and other sports) have looked at alternative protection for its participants. It has been suggested that a system could be set up along the lines of the New Zealand "no fault" compensation scheme which has moved away from liability for personal injury.
The replacement was a form of "no fault" insurance applying to all categories of claimants, including sportsmen. However there is concern over who would fund what is potentially a very costly system.
F. Conclusion.
Until sports governing bodies provide an alternative, or as in the case of FIFA, adhere to the rules of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the law of the land may not be perfect but is currently the only means of redress available to an injured sportsman.
If you require any further information on this case, or indeed the whole area of
Watson was Bradford City's record signing at the time of the incident, after he had moved from Southampton in a £550,000 deal.
The fourth minute tackle during a 1-1 draw at Valley Parade, in what was only his third game for the Club, led to Watson undergoing emergency surgery in which he required a 6 inch plate and 7 screws inserted into his leg.
Following five further operations, he missed the remainder of the 1996/97 season, the entire 1997/98 campaign and he only managed a handful of starting appearances in the 1998/99 season before his contract came to an end.
He was represented by Hammond Suddards Solicitors at Leeds High Court in October 1998, where he succeeded in becoming only the second player in the history of the game to prove negligence against another player and vicarious liability against that player's club.
B. Legal principle
To succeed in his claim for negligence, Mr. Justice Hooper found that Gordon Watson had to prove:-
"On the balance of probabilities that a reasonable player would have known that in challenging in such a manner there was a significant risk of serious injury."
Evidence was given by the Referee, Assistant Referees, players and ex-players, including Chris Waddle and Trevor Cherry, the then Managers of the two Clubs namely, Chris Kamara and Brian Horton and expert witnesses including Jimmy Hill.
Furthermore video footage taken from 7 different angles was shown. The judge accepted that a reasonable player would have known that the challenge in question carried a significant risk of serious injury, and therefore found Gray and Huddersfield Town liable for Watson's losses.
C. Amount of compensation
Quantification of the damages awarded to sporting professionals, in particular those at the top of their profession is very difficult, as it involves a good deal of speculation of the Claimant's future earnings. Damages will include provision for the loss of post/future earnings, for pain and suffering and loss of amenity.
In a separate trial for quantum of damages, Mr. Justice Taylor, at the High Court in Newcastle in May 1999, awarded a sum in excess of £950,000 to Watson. This included £202,643 for Watson's past loss of earnings and £730,500 for future earnings on the basis that he judged Watson would probably have joined a Premiership side.
D. Current position
At the time of the award, there was a general concern within football, that such sports injury cases may open the floodgates to other claims. Concern was raised over the number of cases which were being brought before the Courts with the Defendants ranging from Referees to teachers and even to the governing bodies. In recent times however, the floodgates have not opened to the feared extent, although claims continue to be brought.
It is true that the principles established in the Watson case will provide a yardstick in future legal actions and in particular, give an indication as to the level of care which players are required to show one another on the field of play.
There is the belief, held by many people, that in any contact sport such as football, injuries are part and parcel of the game and those people would advocate that contact sports remain as such.
Nevertheless player protection is a crucial element of any game and an individual sportsman should not lose his rights merely because he steps onto a field of play. What should not be forgotten is that sportsmen are mebers of the public and should enjoy the same level of protection that is afforded to all.
E. Alternative Schemes
It is known that the governing bodies of association football (and other sports) have looked at alternative protection for its participants. It has been suggested that a system could be set up along the lines of the New Zealand "no fault" compensation scheme which has moved away from liability for personal injury.
The replacement was a form of "no fault" insurance applying to all categories of claimants, including sportsmen. However there is concern over who would fund what is potentially a very costly system.
F. Conclusion.
Until sports governing bodies provide an alternative, or as in the case of FIFA, adhere to the rules of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the law of the land may not be perfect but is currently the only means of redress available to an injured sportsman.
If you require any further information on this case, or indeed the whole area of
sports law, please contact Jan Levinson (jlevinson@beachcroft.co.uk)
Beachcroft LLP
St. Ann's House
St. Ann Street
Manchester
M2 7LP
Telephone: 0161 934 3000
Advertisement
