449 P.3d 11
Utah2019Background
- Nixon and Clay played on opposing teams in a church-sponsored recreational basketball game; Clay reached in and swiped at the ball, contacting Nixon’s right shoulder, after which Nixon felt his left knee pop and was injured.
- The referee ruled the contact a common foul (not intentional); witnesses and league official characterized reaching/swiping as a common basketball play.
- Nixon sued Clay for negligence; Clay moved for summary judgment and urged adoption of a “contact sports exception.”
- The district court adopted the majority-style contact-sports rule (liability only for willful or reckless conduct) and granted summary judgment for Clay, finding the contact inherent to basketball.
- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment but rejected the majority’s state-of-mind/contact-sport framework; it adopted a rule barring liability for conduct that is inherent in a voluntarily assumed sport.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether courts should adopt a contact-sports exception limiting co-participant liability to intentional or reckless conduct | Nixon argued participants owe a duty of care in sports and that Clay’s conduct was negligent, not inherent | Clay urged adoption of the majority rule shielding participants from liability absent willful or reckless conduct | Court declined the majority’s state-of-mind/contact-sport test and adopted an inherency rule: no duty for conduct inherent in the sport |
| Scope of the exception: limited to "contact sports" or all sports | Nixon argued the sport qualifies as contact and duty should apply | Clay argued the exception should bar liability for conduct inherent in the activity regardless of sport label | Court held exception applies to any sport when the injurious contact is inherent, not only to labeled "contact sports" |
| Whether recklessness or intent must be proven to invoke the exception | Nixon contended Clay’s conduct went beyond inherent play (alleging a “tackle”) | Clay maintained the conduct was a routine swipe/reach inherent in basketball | Court held proof of recklessness/intent is not required; state of mind is only circumstantially relevant to whether conduct is inherent |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on these facts | Nixon argued a factual dispute exists (e.g., alleged tackle) precluding summary judgment | Clay argued undisputed evidence shows the injury resulted from an inherent basketball play | Court affirmed summary judgment: undisputed evidence showed injury occurred during a reach/swipe inherent to basketball, so no duty and no liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Massey v. Griffiths, 152 P.3d 312 (Utah 2007) (standard of review for legal conclusions on appeal)
- B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West, 275 P.3d 228 (Utah 2012) (framework for duty and exceptions in tort law)
- Knight v. Jewett, 834 P.2d 696 (Cal. 1992) (majority rule requiring intentional or reckless conduct for participant liability)
- Pfister v. Shusta, 657 N.E.2d 1013 (Ill. 1995) (discussion of contact-sport line-drawing and risks inherent in sports)
- Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1979) (recognition of limited liability among sports participants)
- Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores, Inc. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 887 P.2d 848 (Utah 1994) (no negligence without a duty)