You got me Parkinsoned, you bastard!

Remove all ads!

Imagine if you will. Two boxers (Boxer X and Boxer Y) step into the ring for a consensual, legal boxing match. Boxer X completely dominates the match, smashing Boxer Y multiple times in the head.

As a result, Boxer Y suffers from serious brain injury and Parkinson's disease. This leads to incredible pain and discomfort, prohibitive medical bills, and an inability to work and earn money.

The question I ask you is whether Boxer X should financially compensate Boxer Y for his injury, and the resulting medical fees and reduction in income?

 

No, not unless the competition expressly forbid head shots. In any competition like this, the participants willingly accept the consequences of the competition, which may include such things as cuts, lost teeth, broken noses (or orbital bones), and brain injury. In rare circumstances, it may even cause death, in which case one would have to prove that the killer went out of his or her way to inflict lethal harm on the victim (i.e. hitting them while they're down, going for the eyes, aiming for the throat, etc.). As long as rules are followed, any injuries suffered were suffered with the 'victim's' consent. No one is to blame but them.

 

I think it depends on the situation. If there was an obvious skill discrepency between the boxers that is concealed from Boxer Y, and it can be proven, then there may be a case.

Further more, if there was evidence of some violation of the rules (like weighted gloves) by Boxer X, he or his corner staff is liable.

Further, the officials, like referee and ringside physician, should be properly trained to recognize problem signs and stop the fight before it reached such a severe state.

 

If you are going to participate in a sport like boxing where there is a known risk of injury then you should accept the consequences.

X shouldn't have to pay Y as Y knew the risks at the time the match was arranged (unless, as already stated, an obvious skill gap was hidden). You've got to think as well that X has to live with the knowledge of what he's done

 

Even speaking purely hypothetically, this thing is impossible to prove and thus unlikely to end up in a financial compensation.

There is no chance that the injured boxer will be able to prove that the Parkinson's disease is the result of those several blows he got (which, him being a boxer is probably not even true anyway). Without a direct cause-effect link between the blows and his disease he can't expect compensation, imho.

I wish people could determine direct causes to Parkinson's in ordinary circumstances (I do not mean the degeneration of dopaminergic neurons, reduction in regulation, and the prevalence of muscarinic effects as result - but the cause behind it.)

Also, both sides knew what happens in a boxing ring. Even in some special circumstances (unfair fighting and stuff) the claim of Parkinson's wouldn't stand. Other injuries and stuff might.

 

Interesting.

So let's change the scenario. Let's assume you're incredibly drunk. Despite it being blatantly apparent that you are drunk, your friend decides to risk you driving him home. While driving home, you smash into a pole and kill your friend.

Should you be held accountable for his death? Or, as with the previous example, did your friend acknowledge and accept the risk, and thus have to accept the consequences?

 

Boxers do not get Parkinsons from fighting. They get Parkinson like symptoms, but it is really brain damage. Muhammad Ali may be an exception. He may have both. I have never been able to figure out if he truly is diagnosed with Parkinsons or just Parkinson's like symptoms.

As to the second example, it is a totally different situation. Drunk driving is illegal and so is involuntary vehicular homicide. Boxing is not illegal. Your friend may also be drunk and therefore not capable of making an informed decision as to whether they should get into the car with you.

I'm curious as to what made you start this thread?

 

As far as the boxers go, I agree with others. No, provided the rules were followed.

As for the second scenario, it depends. If I wasn't going to drive at all, but my friend actually asked me to drive him home, then I'd want to hold him accountable for encouraging me to do something which, due to my condition, I lacked the judgement to say no to. If, on the other hand, I was going to drive anyway, and my friend knew I was drunk (and assuming I could somehow prove that he knew I was drunk), then I should be charged with DUI and with his death, but his family shouldn't be entitled to compensation under a civil suit.

 

I agree with Splunge on the second. In a legal environment, both parties accept the risk and the law gives it a go-ahead. In an illegal environment, both parties accept the risk (even if that means getting drunk while having your keys on you), but the law says someone did something illegal and needs to be punished. If the friend actively encouraged the person to drive, and survived, I would want to charge him with something, perhaps conspiracy, or perhaps some kind of persuasion or collusion or something, I don't know the law well enough.

 

A very good point though Count. I suppose it's all circumstances

 

Clearly, in the boxer case there can't be legal recourse between the pugilists. I'm pretty sure most participants in "combat sports" sign waivers to guard against this sort of action anyway. The drunk-driving case isn't a valid analogy because drunk-driving is just plain illegal to start off with; you're putting far more people at risk than just yourself + a passenger (as plenty of people have already pointed out). That's why it's illegal in the first place. It's important to remember in these War On Terror obsessed times, that not all laws are created just to edge us ever closer to becoming a police state.

 

Montresor:

Precisely.

Yes. So if you were to hit and kill some unsuspecting pedestrian, you should be charged with murder. That would be analogous to punching some unsuspecting dweeb in the back of the head outside of the ring.

The Magpie:

What does that matter? That's an arbitrary distinction, not a distinction which explains why the passenger shouldn't accept responsibility for knowingly engaging in risky activity.

But if you did want to bring illegality into this, this begs the question: Shouldn't the passenger be charged with a crime? If I knowingly accept the proceedings of a crime (eg. money from a bank robbery), why shouldn't I be charged with benefitting from the actions of a drunk driver (ie. getting driven home)?

 

Hang on a second - if you're staying true to your original analogy, then you're trying to say Boxer Y suing Boxer X is analogous to Passenger suing Driver, in the drunk driving case, correct? The problem would be with the legal concept of "duty of care". The driver has a duty of care to both his passengers and other road users. This is true whether his passenger is drunk too and egged him on, or not. By owning a license and taking the keys, you are taking responsibility. The boxer case is different, because the duty of care lies with the referee and the trainers. Participating in illegal activity on the road (drunk/dangerous driving) is an automatic failure in this duty of care, which is why the passenger would likely have a right to sue automatically, whereas the boxer would not (although may be able to sue the officials, if no waiver was signed).

QED.

 

I think it would be classed as manslaughter as death was caused without intent. I could be wrong though....it's been a LONG time since I studied law!

 

Magpie, my problem with that is, the passenger knew the driver was drunk before getting into the car. In essense, the driver may as well already be failing in duty of care, and with the passenger's knowledge, before the passenger is subject to it. Basically, the passenger subjected himself to the failure of duty of care, just like if someone jumped in front of a man firing a gun at a gun range. Now, if both were drunk, that adds some twists into it, but I still don't see the passenger having any right to sue the driver. The driver can face legal proceedings, but a suit?

 

Well, a suit would rather be dependent on the specifics of the country's legal system, but when I learned to drive it was hammered into me that the driver has total responsibility for passengers. O.K., you don't have to force them to wear seatbelts (if they're over 14), but otherwise they're all yours. The issue regarding inebriation of the passenger is an aside; even if they encouraged the driver to drive, final responsibility is the drivers. If that seems harsh, that's because it is. Morally, it might seem odd to pick out the driver when both parties are as drunk as the other, but that's the law.

The person jumping in front of the gun range is a different case; there are two potential problems with the analogy: 1) the duty of care may well lie with the range operators, not the firer, to keep people out of the line of fire, and 2) that person is acting in a manner that could best be described as suicidal - they're effectively voluntarily failing in their own duty of care to themselves!

The drunk should not drive if over the limit, it's as simple as that. Any passengers will be considered to be his responsibility. Of course, alcohol effects reasoning and suggestability, but that's never an acceptable excuse. If the passenger can be proved to have encouraged the driver, then that may harm an attempt to take civil action, but it seems unlikely that concrete proof of this could be established. It is likely that, in the majority of cases, the driver's legal responsibilities are the principle factor.

In any case, I don't think the analogy is apt or valid to the boxer case.

 

I think it's all moot anyway. Boxers (and any other potentially dangerous activity) sign a waver. So long as the hits were legal, there are no possible ramifications (criminal or civil).

 

What all would such a waiver include? Does it assume competent officiating? Does it assume honest reporting of skill levels? Are there obligations involved, where failure to meet them invalidates the waiver?