court case

[crossref]

for anyone interested in Rugby and the Law
well, rugby and English Law

this ongoing case could have implications.

one thing of interest to us perhaps - is that the King's lawyers are emphasising that the incident di not attract any sanction from the referee..
not sure whether that really makes a lot of difference to the case, but I am not a lawyer.

Rugby player accused of paralysing smaller woman sued for £10million

Dani Czernuszka, 34, says Natasha King 'belly-flopped' onto her during a ruck, breaking her spine, in a league match between her team Reading Sirens and Bracknell Ladies in October 2017.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Mipper]

Well the implication here, is that the tackle was legal because it was not sanctioned on the pitch. I would imagine that this can be reasonably challenged but I expect that Is why they’re at the high court.

of course this is arguable, but then most of the points raised in the article are arguable.

 

[crossref]

I am wondering : if Czernuszka does win her case, which insurers stand to lose

The RFU injury policy will have paid out already, as it pays out for any very serious injury regardless of how caused.

So they are after additional - but from who ? I assume King doesn't have £10m)
It may be that Natasha King holds her own insurance policy..

 

[Mipper]

yes well firstly if she does win, it will be nowhere near £10m, but secondly I’m assuming that she is covered through the clubs insurance?

 

[crossref]

yes well firstly if she does win, it will be nowhere near £10m, but secondly I’m assuming that she is covered through the clubs insurance?

the standard RFU insurance is not as generous as you might expect (I would advise players to take out their own)

Payout for spine injury = just £300,000

RFU Rugby Players Insurance | Howden UK

The RFU provides individual players with public liability and personal accident insurance

www.howdengroup.com

She will presumably collected that (it's not dependent on proving anyone at fault, it covers everyone regardless), but will be seeking more

Why not £10m ? She was 29. It's a long lifetime of diminished earning + lifetime cost of care.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The , poor quality, photo confirms , yet again, that still pictures tell us very little about the incident. Lots of tosh in the article. But then it is the Daily Heil so no surprise there.

 

[crossref]

The , poor quality, photo confirms , yet again, that still pictures tell us very little about the incident. Lots of tosh in the article. But then it is the Daily Heil so no surprise there.

How do know it's tosh , do you have some inside information? Tell us more!

If DC wins the case it will have large implications for sport

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Can you not see it for yourself? Irrespective of the facts. Which no I don't know. There is garbage in the claims that the paper is "quoting". I am used to the Heil wording "quotes" to suit themselves and the story they are selling. It is no surprise that Wikipedia does not accept the Heil and a reliable news source. When Wiki does not belief you you are really in trouble.

 

[crossref]

Well here it is in the times £

Rugby player sued by paralysed rival denies tackle was revenge

A rugby player accused of paralysing an opponent with a “belly flop” tackle has told a court that she does not play to “hurt people intentionally”.Natasha King

www.thetimes.co.uk

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Not readable unless I subscribe. Which I'd never do. I'd rather wait for facts after the case than guess what discredited journos what to print. Thanks all the same.
A couple of clues for you:

The relative size of the two players is not relevnt to the issue. A player does not calculate size ratios when making tackles.
The referee is pretty darn close and is LIKELY (because I can't say that he was looking exactly in the right place) t ohave had a very good view and say no issue. HMMMMMMM!?
She flopped on her in a ruck and it was a tackle at the same time. Interesting. Lawyers tend to word the facts "legally" to "support" their argument. The choice of wording suggests sloppy "reporting".

 

[crossref]

The relative size of the two players is not relevnt to the issue. A player does not calculate size ratios when making tackles.

But should they ? (Re 9.11 and 9.13)

The referee is pretty darn close and is LIKELY (because I can't say that he was looking exactly in the right place) t ohave had a very good view and say no issue. HMMMMMMM!?

Indeed, and it will be very interesting to see what importance is attached to that.
(I suspect very little.. but the more importance that is attached to the refs judgement, the worse it is for referees. We don't want to be dragged into legal cases)

She flopped on her in a ruck and it was a tackle at the same time. Interesting. Lawyers tend to word the facts "legally" to "support" their argument.

That's kinda their job right
And the role of the court is to establish the actual facts



It's actually quite hard to bring a case like this, there is an implied consent when playing rugby that is the first hurdle that people fall at

 

[crossref]

Found some more, from pre trial hearing

Miss Watts' lawyer, Robert Weir KC, said: 'The nature of the tackle and its execution was not reasonable or lawful.

'Ms King showed a reckless disregard for Miss Watts' safety.'

The incident occurred after flanker Miss Watts tackled Ms King legally before waiting in a crouched position to receive the ball from the ruck.

Ms King, who was alleged to have been playing with 'aggressive physicality', then tackled her according to Miss Watts, 'exerting her full weight downwards onto her head and back' and snapping her spine.

Mr Weir said that Ms King did not act on a split-second decision but had had enough time to assess whether and how to tackle Miss Watts.

'She made no attempt to play the ball or legitimately to tackle the claimant.

'She landed on Miss Watts with excessive force when she knew or ought to have know that, by reason of her comparatively much heavier weight and stature, tackling the claimant in the manner she did was likely to cause her injury.

Ms King, from Bracknell, insists her tackle was within the rules of the game and that she did nothing wrong

Lawyer Geoffrey Brown, representing her, said in her written defence to the claim: 'It was a rugby injury, arising through the risks inherent in playing the game.'

'The claimant, by participating in the match impliedly consented to the risk of injury, which has resulted in her injury.

'Her tackling is not fairly or accurately described as being in a belly-flop style or as being in any way inappropriate,' he says.

'The impact between the players was not particularly - and, in any event, not unreasonably - forceful.

'It was not such as might foreseeably be expected to occasion significant injury to the claimant, let alone one of remotely the severity sustained.'

Ms King also denies being offside - on the wrong side of the play - when she made the tackle.

Her barrister said that her heavier weight, as with that of others on the field, 'did not impose a higher duty of care'.

'There was nothing wrong with the physical contact used to make the tackle or the first defendant's tackling technique,' he added.

The case, which is believed to be the first case of its kind in the women's game, reached the High Court for a pre-trial hearing last week and will return for a full trial of Miss Watts' claim at a later date.

The precise amount being sued for is not known but cases involving young people in being paralysed have led to multimillion-pound payouts.

 

[Stu10]

For those trying to follow, it appears that Mrs Czernuszka is now Miss King.

The incident occurred after flanker Miss Watts tackled Ms King legally before waiting in a crouched position to receive the ball from the ruck.

There appears to be a mistake here because it was Ms King who tackled Miss Watts.

Mr Weir (Miss Watts' lawyer) is quoted above as saying:

She landed on Miss Watts with excessive force when she knew or ought to have know that, by reason of her comparatively much heavier weight and stature, tackling the claimant in the manner she did was likely to cause her injury.

However, in the Daily Mail he is quoted as saying:

This was a deliberate act of retaliation, designed to smash the claimant, although without the intention to injure

It will be interesting and worrying if this ends with a tackle being considered "lawful" in the eyes of the referee aligned to WR Laws but not "lawful" by the High Court.

Curiously (but not relevant), Miss Watts was playing flanker and Ms King was playing fly half.

 

[crossref]

There were two tackles

First DC(DW) tackled NK and supposedly NK was annoyed at the successful tackle and vowed revenge

Then shortly after NK tackled DC(DW) (who was in the 9 position behind a ruck) causing the injury

 

[Marc Wakeham]

For those trying to follow, it appears that Mrs Czernuszka is now Miss King.



There appears to be a mistake here because it was Ms King who tackled Miss Watts.

Mr Weir (Miss Watts' lawyer) is quoted above as saying:

However, in the Daily Mail he is quoted as saying:


It will be interesting and worrying if this ends with a tackle being considered "lawful" in the eyes of the referee aligned to WR Laws but not "lawful" by the High Court.

Curiously (but not relevant), Miss Watts was playing flanker and Ms King was playing fly half.

Hence the need to treat press report very very very carefully. Facts and the british press are not bed fellows.

 

[crossref]

Hence theneedt otreat press report very very very carefully.

Or just to read it carefully!

 

[Phil E]

I wonder if the legal teams will bring in expert witnesses. i.e. high ranking referees?

First thing they will need to do is point out that the game has laws not rules

 

[number11]

Here's link to the Times article that should work: https://archive.is/Vzyaf

(you can unlock many paywalled sites like this: just add archive.is/ in front of the url, e.g. archive.is/www.thetimes.co.uk/etc/etc.html)

 

[crossref]

I wonder if the legal teams will bring in expert witnesses. i.e. high ranking referees?

I would be very surprised, as this case isn't about the laws of Rugby, but those of the land

 

[Phil E]

I would be very surprised, as this case isn't about the laws of Rugby, but those of the land

The quote you posted from the pre-trial hearing contains several references from both sides to whether the people concerned did, or did not adhere to the laws of rugby. They are using that to bolster their arguments.