Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner.

Fulham Football Club wins appeal over youth player tackle injury claim

Fulham appealed against a judge’s ruling that it was vicariously liable for the consequences of a youth player’s tackle (Glyn Kirk/PA)
Fulham appealed against a judge’s ruling that it was vicariously liable for the consequences of a youth player’s tackle (Glyn Kirk/PA)

Fulham Football Club has won a High Court challenge against a judge’s ruling that it was liable for a youth player’s tackle on an opponent which allegedly led to the end of his professional career.

The incident occurred in an under-18s game between Fulham and Swansea City Football Club at Motspur Park, south-west London, on December 10 2016.

Towards the end of the first half of the match, Fulham midfielder Jayden Harris tackled Jordan Jones which resulted in the Swansea player suffering a serious injury to his right ankle.

Mr Jones later brought a damages claim against Fulham, arguing that the tackle amounted to assault or negligence and that, as Mr Harris’s employer, the club was vicariously liable for his actions.

In October last year a judge dismissed the assault claim but concluded that the tackle was a breach of Mr Harris’s “duty to take the reasonable care for another player’s safety that was appropriate in all the circumstances of a professional game of football”.

He ruled that Mr Harris was guilty of negligence, making his club vicariously liable for the injury to Mr Jones and its consequences.

Fulham appealed against the ruling on four grounds at a hearing in April this year, and a High Court judge overturned the original decision in a judgment published on Wednesday and said a new trial should take place.

The club argued that the first judge failed to apply a legal test over the standard for liability for personal injury claims in the professional sports context.

This requires the consideration of whether a defendant breached football’s “laws of the game”, followed by a determination of whether there was negligence – which is set at a “materially higher standard” than in other personal injury claims.

Fulham also argued the judge failed to give “adequate reasons” why he rejected the evidence of its expert witness, and was in error by not taking into account the context of Mr Harris’s tackle and “the realities of the playing culture of professional football, which is a fast-paced, competitive game necessarily involving physical contact”.

The judge also failed to take into account other evidence, such as the fact that the match referee did not issue a yellow or red card over the tackle, the club argued.

In the ruling on Wednesday, Mr Justice Lane said Fulham had succeeded on all its grounds of appeal, and that the previous judgment should be set aside.

He concluded that “by closely aligning serious foul play in the laws of the game with actionable negligence” the judge “wrongly reduced the ambit of the inquiry required in order to answer the question of whether, in all the circumstances, Mr Harris’s tackle was not only a breach of the rules of game but negligent”.

Mr Justice Lane said it “matters very much” whether or not the tackle was made in “a fast-moving, heat-of-the-moment” context where Mr Harris did not intend to cause injury.

He added that the judge “fell into error in his treatment of the expert evidence” and that his ruling was in error where it “purports to set a standard for reckless or quasi-reckless behaviour in the context of professional football, which is far below what is needed to establish such liability”.

The judge also “erred in law in affording no weight at all to the fact that the referee did not award a foul”, Mr Justice Lane said.

Following Wednesday’s judgment, Matthew Harpin, partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, who acted for Fulham, said: “This is a really significant decision dealing with the circumstances in which a court may reach a finding of civil liability following an allegedly dangerous or reckless tackle in a competitive game of football.

“We are delighted that the judge found in Fulham’s favour on all four of our grounds of appeal and agreed that civil liability must be a rare finding in this arena.”