HACKBART v. CINCINNATI BENGALS, INC. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A professional football player was intentionally struck and injured by an opponent after a play. The court held that tort liability for reckless misconduct can exist for actions that are outside the accepted rules and customs of a violent professional sport, reversing a lower court’s dismissal.
Legal Significance: Establishes that participation in a violent professional sport does not grant immunity from tort liability. An injured player may recover for conduct that is in reckless disregard of their safety and falls outside the sport’s accepted rules and customs.
HACKBART v. CINCINNATI BENGALS, INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
During a 1973 professional football game, plaintiff Dale Hackbart, a defensive back for the Denver Broncos, was on one knee watching a play conclude after having thrown a block. Defendant Charles “Booby” Clark, an offensive back for the Cincinnati Bengals, acting out of frustration from his team losing, intentionally struck Hackbart from behind with a forearm blow to the back of his head and neck. The act was not penalized by officials but was captured on game film. Hackbart experienced significant pain and was later diagnosed with a serious neck fracture that ended his career. The trial court found the blow was intentional but dismissed the case, ruling as a matter of law that professional football is a violent business where such conduct is not actionable in tort. The trial court reasoned that courts are ill-suited to regulate on-field violence. Hackbart appealed, arguing that his claim for reckless misconduct should be allowed to proceed, as the one-year statute of limitations for assault and battery had expired.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a professional football player be held liable in tort for an injury resulting from conduct that demonstrates a reckless disregard for the safety of an opponent and is outside the recognized rules and customs of the game?
Yes. The court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded for a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can a professional football player be held liable in tort for an injury resulting from conduct that demonstrates a reckless disregard for the safety of an opponent and is outside the recognized rules and customs of the game?
Conclusion
This landmark case establishes that even in inherently violent professional sports, participants Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea co
Legal Rule
A participant in a professional sport may be held liable for injuries Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit
Legal Analysis
The Tenth Circuit rejected the trial court's policy-based determination that professional football Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt i
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A participant in a professional sport can be liable in tort