LIABILITY OF FOOTBALLERS.

Evening Post, Volume XVII, Issue 350, 21 February 1879, Page 2

LIABILITY OF FOOTBALLERS.

At the R M. Court this morning the case of Bell v. Campbell was beard. The plaintiff, for whom Mr. Gordon Allan appeared, brought the action through his father to recover £100 damages for injuries sustained by being knocked d >wn by the defendant during a football match on the Basin Reserve, whereby his leg was broken. Mr. H. P. Bell defended. Mr. Allan, in opening the case, submitted that the Basin Reserve, being a public recreation ground, players were obliged to use due care in playing. If a looker-on had been struck by a cricket ball it might be argued that the player could not tell in what direction the ball was going-, and therefore could not be held respon-ible tor the spectator being Struck. In this case the player himself ran against the boy, and be (Mr. Allan) contended that he was liable for any injury which the latter might sustain. Mr. James Ames, City Valuer, deposed that the public had a right to be present at the sports on the Basin Reserve. He was present on the ground on the 30th August last when the accident took place. A number of flags were placed round tbe ground to mark it off. The plaintiff was standing 15 or 20 yards behind the goal The ball was kicked past tbe goal, aud defendant following it came in contact with the plaintiff, who fell. Defendant went on and picked up the ball, and in returning he stopped and looked at the boy, who was still lying on the ground. Tho players called out, " Cinne on, he's all right," and defendant then returned to the ring. Witness sang out that the boy was hurt, and he and Mr. Elliot went to his assistance. It was then discovered that the boy's leg was broken, and be was carried to his home on some boards. He bolieved that the boy was kuocked down by an accident, but defendaut could have avoided him by diverging. Crosss-examined, witness said tbat he did not know auy thing about football. He noticed that as soon as the ball passed the goal-lino there was generally a great rush after it. On this occasion, however, only Campbell went after it. Paaintiff was standing somewhere near tbe running- path. Witness could not say whether the boy was runniug when Campbell knocked him down. Witness expressed himself very strongly on the ground at the conduct of the players in leaviog the boy after knocking him down- He had noticed that wuen they kuocked each other down they immediately ran for braudy and all sorts of tuiugs, but they did opt go for anything on this particular occasion. After exzwiniag the boy, one of the players fetched the boards on which he was carried away. Re-examined — The first time I noticed the boy was when he wns kuocked down. He appeared to me to be standing still. Carl Peters, cabinet maker, deposed that tbe boy was standing still oa the grass outside the running path when he was knocked dowa. Witness was very much annoyed at the wjy defeudant treated the boy. He was lying crying on the grass, and a remark was made, " oh, he's all right, let's go on," and they left him. Several gentlemen present said it was a shame to treat him in that manner. The defendant could certainly, by exercising reasonable care, have avoided the bjy. In cross-examination, witness said that ho had run faster himself than Mr. Cam pool I did on the occasion in question. Mr. Bell— When? Witness— l was three years a soldier in the Franco- Prussian war, and we had to run faster then. (Much laughter.) Mr* Mansford asked if he referred to running after the eaemy or running away from them. (Laughter.) Witness — Running after them. In further cross-examination, witness said that he did not think that defcadant should have removed tbe plaintiff at once, but be should not iiave walked away from him in the cool and brutal manner which he did. Dr. Watts deposed that both bones of the left leg of tho plaintiff were broken just below tbe calt. It was a simple fracture The h-g showed signs of having received a kick or blow from some foreign body. His charges were ten guineas. Cross-examined — A broken bone could never be equal to a whole one. There would be pain at intervals for years. Tbe periosteum would be thickened and hardened, and at every change of the weather tbe limb would give warniug of the past injury. A certain amount of stiffness and discomfort in using the limb would probably bo felt for two or three years. Robert Eiiiott, au ex-publican, corroborated the evidence of the first witness, and said ho believed that the defendant, by the exercise of reasonable care, could have avoided running against tbe plaintiff. Mr. Bell— Why do you think so? Witness— Well, lud it been a lamp-post, I don't suppose the gentleman would have run against it (Laughter.) George Bennett, a carpenter, gave evidence in suppurt of the plaintiff's case. In cross-examination, he said that he considered the most dangerous part of the fi«ld w«.uld be behiud tho goal-line, whare the plaintiff was. Re-oxamined — There was no notice givon to spectators that that was a dangerous part of the field- It would have been easy for the dofondant to have avoided the boy. Charles ilaslan also gave corroborative evidence, and said that the boy turned half-round to look at the ball, so that he could not see the defendant coming. Alfred Coleman, contractor, also gave evidence. Some further evidence having been given, Mr. Bell, addressing the Bench for the defence, said that he should call a number of witnesses to prove that defendant was being hotly pursued at the time he was running after the ball. The hottest rushes took place behind the goal, and he submitted that the boy ought to have known this and kept out of the way. Under the " M»nagement of Civil Reseryes Act, 1862," a portion of tbe Basin Reserve wa* set apart for cricket and other games, and therefore the players had a right to bs there, and it was the business of the spectators to keep out of the way. He submitted first that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant ; and, secondly, if his Worship should be of opinion that there was negligence on the part of the defendant, he should contend that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in standing ia the field of play with his hands ia his pockets, and turning round to look at the ball when a play tr was running after it. Witnesses were then examined for the defence. The case was proceeding when we went to press.

When is a man part of a fishing tackle 1— I When he's afloat.