Could Myles Garrett Face Criminal Liability for the On-Field Incident Thursday Night?
Some quick thoughts from our litigation attorney Vince Zuccaro:
As I flipped around the shows this morning, everyone seemed to agree. It was disgraceful. Embarrassing. Unprecedented. Cause for removal.
No. They weren’t talking about the impeachment proceedings in Washington, but rather a Cleveland football team whose ability to generate national headlines far outpaces any of its on-field accomplishments. In the waning moments of a rare win over their Pittsburgh rival, Browns defensive end Miles Garrett decided to play an impromptu game of “whack-a-mole” with Steelers quarterback Mason Rudolph by hitting him in the head with his own helmet. Rudolph was not amused.
The NFL just suspended Garrett for at least the remainder of the year, but questions remain about possible criminal or civil liability for his actions. But liable for what? Assault? Battery? That’s what football is! (Albeit in organized form.) What about intentional infliction of emotional distress? Does Rudolph have any civil recourse here? Probably not, because, at least right now, it is not reported that he has been injured. But that’s boring. So what if he had been injured? Then, his chances would look a bit better.
The case of Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, 435 F.Supp. 352 (U.S. Dist. Colorado, 1977) (later reversed 601 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1979)), while not controlling, is instructive. The lawsuit involved a player for the Cincinnati Bengals, Charles Clark, who “acting out of anger and frustration, but without a specific intent to injure…stepped forward and stuck a blow with his right forearm to the back of the kneeling plaintiff’s head and neck.” That “kneeling plaintiff” was Denver Broncos player Dale Hackbart. Hackbart sued for “reckless misconduct” against Clark and negligence against the Bengals.
The trial court in Colorado (435 F.Supp. 352 (U.S. Dist. Colorado, 1977) threw the lawsuit out, reasoning as follows:
The violence of professional football is carefully orchestrated. Both offensive and defensive players must be extremely aggressive in their actions and they must play with a reckless abandonment of self-protective instincts. The coaches make studied and deliberate efforts to build the emotional levels of their players to what some call a "controlled rage."
There is no discernible code of conduct for NFL players. The dictionary definition of a sportsman is one who abides by the rules of a contest and accepts victory or defeat graciously. That is not the prevalent attitude in professional football. There are no Athenian virtues in this form of athletics. The NFL has substituted the morality of the battlefield for that of the playing field, and the "restraints of civilization" have been left on the sidelines.
The appellate court 601 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1979), however, did not agree:
The general customs of football do not approve the intentional punching or striking of others. That this is prohibited was supported by the testimony of all of the witnesses. They testified that the intentional striking of a player in the face or from the rear is prohibited by the playing rules as well as the general customs of the game. Punching or hitting with the arms is prohibited. Undoubtedly these restraints are intended to establish reasonable boundaries so that one football player cannot intentionally inflict a serious injury on another. Therefore, the notion is not correct that all reason has been abandoned, whereby the only possible remedy for the person who has been the victim of an unlawful blow is retaliation.