Would be get sue or be arrest if you hurt your opponent??
 

I am just wondering is it a crime if you hurt your opponent really bad with tennis shot ? Like a big smash into him at the net, are they able to call the cop on you?

Ask Lendl's opponents......

Fearsome Forehand would be the main person that I would think could answer a question like this.

I would also say, that I don't think it would be a "crime", as in a crime you could be arrested for.

At most, in the US (because we sue for everything), I could see someone attempting to file a lawsuit for medical bills or something, but I think when you step on a tennis court to play a match, you "assume the risk" that you could be hit by a correctly struck or errantly struck tennis shot.

There would be more of a case if you were on another court, and a player from the adjacent court got mad and negligently fired a smash that hit you or something like that. But in the normal course of the match, my thought would be no.

I would suggest you try it and see what happens

Just as in the case of a hockey player who was prosecuted in Canada for hitting another player over the head, the issue is intent. Hitting a shot at another player is indeed part of the game and would not ordinarily carry any liability, criminal or civil. However, if you had said "I'm gonna hurt you" or given any other indication just before doing it that your wish was to cause injury or pain, you could be arrested, sued, or both.

You are talking two different types of law: civil and criminal

There's a general acceptance of risk when playing a sport that players inherently assume. All you would need to prove is that there was no malicious intent to damage the other person.

As far as criminal goes, if a person knowingly and intentionally aims at and strikes a person with a ball, racquet, etc it could be interpreted as assault (the threat) and battery (the striking). That is the discretion of the executive powers to be (police/DA) on what they think the judicial process would determine.

As far as civil goes, you'd want to consult with your insurance agent. Intentional acts are generally not insured under a liability policy (homeowner, renter, umbrella). The plaintiff in a suit for intentional damages could ultimately sue you directly and you'd need to defend yourself and pay damages out of your own assets.

However, accidental damages caused in a tort against a claiming party are covered by insurance. Again, the plaintiff would have to explain how they "assumed the risk" of playing a sport within the rules and even by doing so were damaged by the defendant. Chances are, your insurance company would opt to settle with the claimant for a nominal amount to avoid litigation against you and the possibility of punitive (punishment) damages, which most liability carriers don't cover.

Nutshell, I don't think either would happen in the normal course of events of a tennis match/practice. Just ask yourself, "what would a jury of 6-12 of normal adults believe?" That would be your answer. It's America. Legislative, Judicial, executive checks and balances.

This makes me want to do a Lexis search for "tennis court injury" but I'm too lazy, maybe some law student out there can find some case law for us.

Solano v. Abrenica, 69 Cal. App. 4th 997

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff and defendant, teammates in a tennis organization, were on the same side of the net in a practice session with two other teammates. When the team captain ended the session, the participants stopped playing, and plaintiff began to leave the tennis court by walking alongside the net. However, defendant made one more serve and the ball struck plaintiff in the eye, causing injuries. Plaintiff sued defendant, and the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court held that because plaintiff was no longer participating in the game at the time she was struck by the tennis ball, she did not assume the risks of being a tennis participant, and defendant was not entitled to the defense of primary assumption of risk. Thus, there were questions of material fact on defendant's duty to plaintiff as a non-participant of the game and whether or not defendant's conduct was reckless. Therefore, the court reversed the order.

OUTCOME: The court reversed the order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for injuries after being struck by a tennis ball served by defendant, plaintiff's teammate, at the end of a practice session, because plaintiff's assumption of the risks inherent in tennis ended when the practice session ended, and a jury could find that defendant acted recklessly. Thus, summary judgment was inappropriate.

DUC LE v. SAM, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 9182

Plaintiff Duc Le appeals a judgment following a defense verdict in his personal injury action against defendant Henry Sam. Le suffered an eye injury during a doubles tennis match when Sam, his doubles partner, served a ball that hit Le. On appeal, Le contends the trial court erred by: (1) concluding the primary assumption of risk doctrine applied and therefore not instructing on general negligence principles; (2) refusing to give special jury instructions Le requested; and (3) limiting the scope of testimony by his expert witness; and (4) awarding Sam costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 998.

Affirmed

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-civil-court/1307416.html

This one is interesting, player goes to a drill session organized by the USTA at Flushing Meadows and gets hit in the eye. She sues, the USTA moves for summary judgement and dismissal and the court denies the motion ! Good discussion of the assumption of risk doctrine. I wonder whatever happened, probably the USTA settled with the plaintiff.

My firm only pays for California cases in Lexis, so I'm sure there are more out there. The first one I cited isn't really the same fact pattern, but I'm surprised that the summary judgment was reversed.

The second one is unpublished, so it's hard to tell what the full facts were, but it sounds pretty close (except it was his own doubles partner that hit him).

If the match was over, the assumption of risk should have ended. This strikes me as the same analysis in Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. 601 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1979), in which a football player punches another in the back of the head fracturing his neck, a violation of the rules, the plaintiff did not assume he risk. In contrast, the OPs hypo about pulling a Lendl and driving a ball hard at an opponent at the net seems to be the exact risk assumed by playing tennis (that a valid return strikes a player).

I don't think that's the same analysis though. The issue in the tennis one is that the practice session ended. The issue in the football game was dealing with a violation of the rules that extended the risk beyond what should be assumed, right? One was accidental, one was deliberate.

In the football case the trial found the defendant lacked specific intent to injure. All of these must be analyzed under whether or not the plaintiff consented. I think whether the injury was caused by a negligent, reckless, or intentional act only matters in so far to what was consented.

After a practice is over there is no longer any consent to be exposed to the risks of serving (certainly a reasonable jury could conclude that after the practice ended the plaintiff no longer consented to the risk of neglegently/recklessly hit tennis balls their way).

Plaintiff is very lucky I wasn't the judge.

If you are on a tennis court walking by the net, you are assuming the risk that someone serving a tennis ball will hit you in the eye. If you don't wish to assume that risk, walk along the back curtain.

Sheez.

This is why it can be fun to show up for jury duty!

Waiting for the day it happens where the plaintiff sues not only the player but also the ball, racket, string, and shoe manufacturer.

Depends on the quality of counsel available to the respective parties.

You don't even follow what happened, and yet you are making sarcastic comments. It sure feels good to laugh at "frivolous" lawsuits and the suffering of other people - till it happens to you. It gives people a kind of perverse pleasure and an opportunity to lecture others on morals and responsibility.

The game/session had ended. When a game ends, people shake hands and exit from near the net, not by walking along the back of the court. Then this player picks up a ball and serves (why???) and hits the person.

It is the same situation if you were spinning rackets or tossing, and somebody quickly picks up the ball and serves and hurts you. You certainly don't take on the risk of deliberate predatory activities before and after play when you decide to play tennis.

I need to be careful about something from now on. This thread has opened my eyes.

Sometimes when I am playing, an old fart or two will ask to pass through. I will say "go right ahead." Then as he/they is/are shuffling through, we would start serving or hitting. Sometimes we will test our skills by hitting as close as possible to them yet not touching them with the ball. The guys would panic and run faster and we would wave to them that it was all in good fun.

Got to stop doing this. I don't want to get sued.