What are the different legal theories utilized in sports injury litigation?

Sports injury litigation in Hawaii is based on a variety of legal theories. Generally, plaintiffs (those bringing the lawsuit) must prove that the defendant’s (the party being sued) actions or inaction caused the injury and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. The most common legal theories used in sports injury litigation in Hawaii include negligence, assumption of risk, and product liability. Negligence is the legal theory where a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, the defendant breached that duty of care, and the breach of this duty was directly responsible for the injury sustained. Assumption of risk occurs when a plaintiff voluntarily, knowingly, and without coercion, agrees to accept a risk from an activity. The plaintiff may not be compensated for any injury sustained in this situation as it was assumed. Product liability comes up when any equipment or products used caused the injury to the plaintiff. The defendant must show that the product had a defect which caused the injury or that instructions were not sufficient or clear enough for the plaintiff to understand how to properly use the product or equipment. These are the three most commonly used legal theories in sports injury litigation in Hawaii. If a plaintiff can prove that one of these legal theories applies to their situation, they may be able to recover compensation for any injury, losses, and pain and suffering as a result of the defendant’s actions.

What are the different legal theories utilized in sports injury litigation?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts