Sports Injury: Why the Case Needs a Lawyer Who Understands Sport, and Not Only General Tort Law

Summary

A sports injury is not an ordinary tort case. It moves simultaneously between several compensation tracks, invites legal defenses unique to the field, and requires an understanding of sports medicine and of the athlete's way of life in order to quantify the damage correctly. In this article we explain why the combination of an understanding of sport, of sports medicine and of law is what produces precise representation, and how it is reflected in the stages of handling the case. The article is intended for amateur and professional athletes, for family members and for anyone injured during organized physical activity.

What Sets a Sports Injury Apart from an Ordinary Tort Claim

In a classic tort claim, such as a road accident or a slip on a sidewalk, the legal arena is usually relatively clear: there is an event, there is a responsible party, and there is a main compensation track. A sports injury behaves differently. The same injury, say a torn cruciate ligament suffered by a player during an organized game, can give rise at the same time to several separate causes of action and compensation tracks, each operating under its own rules, its own timetables and its own burdens of proof.

Someone who handles such a case as a routine tort claim may focus the entire effort on one track and miss other tracks that were open to the injured person. The gap is not merely procedural. It goes to the question of how much compensation the injured person is actually entitled to, and from which party.

Three Compensation Tracks That Can Operate in Parallel

The tort track: the tort of negligence

The first track is a tort claim for negligence under the Civil Wrongs Ordinance. Here the question is whether any party was negligent and breached a duty of care toward the athlete. That party may be the sports club, the owner of the facility where the athlete trained or played, the organizer of the event or competition, or a coach whose conduct fell below the required standard of care.

Possible examples of a negligent omission include a defective facility that was not properly maintained, missing or faulty safety equipment, training loads imposed on an athlete contrary to their medical condition, or organizing a competition without the accepted safety measures. Proving negligence is not self-evident, and it requires a factual and professional inquiry into what was accepted and required in that particular sport and in those circumstances.

The Bituach Leumi (the National Insurance Institute) track: recognition as a work injury victim

The second track is the rights vis-à-vis Bituach Leumi. A professional athlete injured in the course of their sporting occupation may, if the conditions are met, be recognized as a work injury victim. Such recognition opens up a whole world of rights: injury allowance during the period of incapacity, a work disability grant or pension according to the degree of disability that is determined, and additional services.

The distinction between sport as a hobby and sport as an occupation from which the injured person earns a living is a substantive distinction, and sometimes a complex one. It requires a precise presentation of the nature of the athlete's engagement with the club or association, of their sources of income and of the circumstances of the injury. A lawyer who knows both National Insurance law and the structure of the sport knows how to identify when this track is relevant, and how to present the necessary factual basis.

The insurance coverage track

The third track is insurance coverage. Here it is important to be aware of an obligation specific to the field: the Sports Law, 1988, imposes an insurance obligation for athletes active within sports clubs and associations. This means that an athlete active in organized sport may have dedicated insurance coverage by virtue of the law, in addition to private insurance policies they hold, such as personal accident insurance or health insurance.

Early clarification of all relevant insurance coverage is an important stage in handling the case. Sometimes the injured person is not even aware of the coverage they have by virtue of their membership in an association, so part of the work is to locate the full set of rights available to them before a decision is made on how to proceed.

The Other Side Comes with Defenses Unique to Sport

One of the prominent features of sports claims is that the opposing party, whether a club, an insurer or an organizer, usually raises defenses that are uncommon in ordinary tort cases. Two main defenses are worth knowing.

The first is the defense of voluntary assumption of risk. Under this principle, a person who voluntarily took on a certain risk, while aware of that risk, may be regarded as having agreed to bear its consequences. The other side will argue that the athlete knew and understood the risks involved in the activity and chose to take part in it anyway.

The second is the defense of the inherent risk of the game. Under this principle, every sport carries built-in risks that are an integral part of its nature, and an injury caused by the materialization of such an inherent risk does not necessarily give rise to liability in tort.

Dealing with these defenses is the very core of the specialized knowledge in this field. The question is not merely one of principle; it is factual and precise: what is considered an inherent, built-in risk of that particular sport, and where the line runs between a risk that is an inherent part of the game and an omission, negligence or departure from safety rules that is not part of the game at all. A convincing answer to these arguments requires familiarity with the rules of the sport, with the safety procedures accepted in it, and with the distinction between what every player accepts and what no one is supposed to bear. This is exactly where an understanding of sport is not a luxury but a working tool.

Causation and Quantifying the Damage: Where Sports Medicine Comes In

Even after liability has been established, two weighty professional questions remain: the question of causation and the question of the extent of the damage. In both, an understanding of sports medicine and of the world of sport is not a nice extra but a condition for precise work.

The question of causation in sport is particularly complex. Athletes, especially professional ones, often carry a history of previous injuries, cumulative loads and wear of tissues over years. The other side may argue that the damage stems from a pre-existing condition and not from the event alleged. Correctly separating what was caused by the event from a prior background requires a careful reading of the medical material and an understanding of how sports injuries develop and manifest.

The question of quantifying the damage is also unique. For an athlete, and especially a professional athlete, the harm is not measured only in percentages of medical disability. An injury may impair the ability to compete at a certain level, shorten a career, reduce future opportunities and change an entire professional path. To quantify damage of this kind, one must understand the career structure in the sport, the expected earnings horizon and the professional significance of the decline in ability. An assessment that ignores this dimension may miss a substantial part of the damage actually caused.

Practical Examples

The following examples are a general and anonymous illustration of the types of issues that arise in the field. They do not indicate any particular outcome.

First example: a player on an organized team

An athlete who took part in the activities of an organized team was injured during training. At first glance it appeared to be a simple tort case against the facility where the training took place. A closer examination of the circumstances raised three separate questions: whether there was a cause of action in negligence against any party because of the way the training was conducted or the facility was maintained; whether, in light of the athlete's status and the nature of their activity, a track of recognition by Bituach Leumi was open to them; and whether they had insurance coverage by virtue of their membership in the organized framework in addition to private policies. In such a case, examining each of the tracks separately is what allows an informed decision on how to proceed, instead of focusing on a single track from the outset.

Second example: dealing with the inherent risk defense

An athlete was injured during competitive activity, and the opposing party immediately argued voluntary assumption of risk and the inherent risk involved in the sport. On its face, this argument might appear to block the way. However, a careful examination of the circumstances was needed to establish whether the injury actually resulted from a built-in and legitimate risk of the game, or rather from a safety omission that is not part of the game at all, such as defective equipment or a departure from accepted safety procedures. The distinction between the two is factual and professional, and it determines whether or not the inherent risk defense applies to the specific circumstances.

Why the Combination of Sport, Medicine and Law Is the Key

The common thread running through all of the above is this: what sets a sports injury case apart is not a single legal point but an accumulation of dimensions, each of which requires a different kind of knowledge. You need to know how to navigate between the compensation tracks and identify which of them are open; you need to understand the sport in order to deal with the defenses of voluntary assumption of risk and inherent risk; you need to read the medical material correctly in order to establish causation; and you need to know the world of sport in order to quantify correctly the harm to career and earnings.

A general tort lawyer has a good command of the legal principles. The difference in a sports case lies in the ability to connect these principles with the specific context of sport and sports medicine, so that no compensation track is overlooked and no dimension of the damage is left unquantified. It is this combination that makes it possible to build a complete picture of the rights available to the injured person.

In Conclusion

A sports injury presents the injured person with a complex map of compensation tracks, unique defenses and medical and professional questions. It is best handled with familiarity with the world of sport, with sports medicine and with the law together, so that no right is left out of the picture.

The Yaniv Gavish Law Office practices tort law and rights vis-à-vis the National Insurance Institute, and is developing a specialization in sports injuries and athletes' rights. If you were injured during a sporting activity and wish to look into your rights, we will be glad to review your inquiry.

Yaniv Gavish Law Office

4 Berkowitz Street, Tel Aviv

Telephone: 076-5385862

Website: gavishlaw.co.il

*The content of this article is general information only and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for it. Each case is examined on its merits and according to its circumstances.*

Summary and Call to Action

Understanding your rights in this field is the first step toward exercising them properly. Each case is examined according to its circumstances, so it is important to prepare accordingly, keep orderly documentation and act on time.

If you are dealing with an issue in this field, or wish to examine your rights, you are welcome to contact the Yaniv Gavish Law Office to look into your individual circumstances. The office practices tort law and the exercise of rights vis-à-vis the National Insurance Institute, and accompanies injured people through these proceedings.

Yaniv Gavish Law Office, 4 Berkowitz Street, Tel Aviv. Telephone: 076-5385862. Website: gavishlaw.co.il.