THE GAME PLAN:

A RESEARCH PROPOSAL ON HOW IMPOSING LEGAL LIABILITY AGAINST

PLAYERS, COACHES AND THE TEAM MANAGEMENT IN CONTACT SPORTS
CAN MITIGATE INJURIES CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE OR INTENTIONAL
TORTS

MARK DAVID DACULA

I. INTRODUCTION

In a game between rivals San Miguel Beermen and Purefoods Hotdogs in

1989, a scary scene shocked die-hard basketball fans. Avelino Borromeo

“Samboy” Lim, Jr., a Hall of Famer shooting guard playing for the Beermen,

suffered a horrible injury which most basketball fans and analysts would

consider one of the worst injuries in Philippine Basketball Association’s long

history.

The Purefoods Hotdogs, headed by Alvin Patrimoño, Jerry Codiñera and

Jojo Lastimosa, were trailing most of the game but they were able to gain some

momentum in the fourth quarter. The game was already heated since the start,

as expected from two teams who considered each other as rivals. The

physicality was intense as both teams wanted to win badly. In the closing

minutes of the game, Lastimosa tried to shoot from mid-range but he was

blocked by Yves Dignadice, the playing center for the Beermen. Samboy Lim

picked up the ball after the block and as he was about to dribble the ball, he

was hit on the face by Lastimosa. The referees called a deliberate foul against

the latter. The fans were exhilarated as the head to head game became more
intense. But everybody became silent and in shock after what they saw to

Samboy Lim.

It was the Beermen’s possession. Samboy Lim drove hard to the basket,

faked Jojo Lastimosa, flew in the air with the ball in his right hand, double

pumped under the outstretched arms of Nelson Asaytono and Jerry Codiñera

who were trying to block his shot but Jojo Lastimosa clotheslined him and

grabbed him by the shoulders. The hard hit to Samboy’s head by Lastimosa

caused his body to lose control and went flying upside down hitting his head

first then shoulder on the hardwood floor. Blood spilled from Samboy’s face. He

was taken out in a stretcher and rushed to Makati Medical Center. He had a

cut in his forehead that needed 18 stitches outside and 8 stitches inside to

close up.1 He also suffered a concussion, a mild traumatic brain injury (TBI). It

can occur after an impact to your head or after a whiplash-type injury that

causes your head and brain to shake quickly back and forth.2 Concussion is

one of the most dangerous injuries to players in any sport.

Most fans that were present on the game and witnessed the incident

would say that it looked like a career-ending injury. Some would even tag it as

the worst fall of a player in PBA history. But surprisingly, he managed to

recover from such injury and played after days of recuperation.

1
Joble, R. (2018, May 1) 3 inspiring PBA stories of players who returned from career-threatening injuries. Retrieved
from https://www.foxsports.ph.
2
Luo, E. (2017, March 15) Concussion. Retrieved from https://www.healthline.com.
 Samboy Lim is one of the PBA’s 25 Greatest Players. His devil-may-care

attitude made him more endeared to the fans. He is well-known as “The

Skywalker” because he could glide himself in mid-air, suspend his shot and

come up with a spectacular play that usually sent the crowd into a deafening

roar.3

That gruesome injury could’ve ended Samboy Lim’s career or worse, his

life. The injury he suffered is a notable example of the danger of sports,

especially contact sports such as basketball. Injuries are commonplace in

sports; some say it is even inherent in sports. But when does the infliction of

injuries cross the legal line and give rise to legal liability? In this case, was Jojo

Lastimosa liable? Was San Miguel vicariously liable? Was his coach liable too?

II. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Sports have been a big part of the culture of the Filipinos. Every time

Manny Pacquiao has a fight, the whole nation would unite to support him.

When the national men’s basketball team, Gilas Pilipinas ended the Korean

curse in the 2013 FIBA-Asia Championships to advance to its first World

Championship appearance in four decades, avid basketball fans broke down in

tears. The love for sports of the Filipinos is also evident in the collegiate level.

The rivalry between the Ateneo Blue Eagles and De La Salle University is

3
Joble, R. (2018, May 1) 3 inspiring PBA stories of players who returned from career-threatening injuries. Retrieved
from https://www.foxsports.ph.
always much anticipated by fans. Such rivalry even reached the sports pages of

The New York Times in 2007.4

Filipinos play different kinds of sports but basketball is the biggest in the

country. The country’s love for the game is evident in Rafe Bartholomew’s book

Pacific Rims where he talks about how the Philippines has embraced the game

in practically every aspect of the Philippine culture.5

In contact sports like basketball, injuries are inevitable. It is almost

inherent to the sport because of its nature. The history of Philippine sports is

not all about triumphant victories. It also had its fair share of dark times where

Filipinos witness players suffer from gruesome injuries just like what happened

to Samboy Lim. Some of these injuries are results of accidents or inadvertent

actions by other players. But, it cannot be denied that few are caused by

negligence, intentional tort or reckless disregard of the safety rules by a player.

To say that a study of sports and its relation to torts law is irrelevant is

turning a blind eye to the country’s love of sports—and the dark side that

comes with it. While the Philippines might not have a sports industry as

developed as that of the United States, one needs only to look at the hoopla

and fanfare surrounding sports to see that sports is just as well-received in the

4
Bartholomew, R. (2007 Sept. 23). A Nation’s Passion Lives in a Rivalry of Green vs. Blue, N.Y. TIMES. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com.
5
Bartholomew, R. (2010). Pacific Rims: Beermen Ballin’ in Flip-flops and the Philippines’ Unlikely Love Affair with
Basketball
Philippines as in any other country. Furthermore, the very nature of sports as

competition, its hold on society’s psyche, and the underlying business and

monetary interests nowadays have raised the stakes in sports.6

Today, the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) is imposing sanctions

and fines against players if it is proven that they have committed deliberate

wrongful actions on the court. A recent example is the suspension of Calvin

Abueva of the Phoenix Pulse because he clotheslined the Talk n’ Text import

Terrence Jones.7 Such sanctions and fines are also the way of other league

associations in other sports to mitigate intentional torts in games.

There has been no case in the Supreme Court where a player asked for

recovery or filed a civil action against another player for an injury suffered

caused by negligence or intentional tort. The lack of such jurisprudence is an

evident manifestation that there are no sufficient statutes regulating such

incidents.8 Some would argue that players know and understand the risk and

that they have consented themselves to such risk. But, as the Philippine sports

progress, Filipino fans hope not to see and experience dark times anymore.

6
Ingles, I. (2016). Philippine Sports Torts: Adopting a Standard of Care for Sports Competitions and Establishing
Vicarious Liability for Professional Coaches (pg. 7)
7
Terrado, R. (2019, June 2). Calvin Abueva joins ejected list for clothesline on Terrence Jones. Retrieved from
https://www.spin.ph.
8
Ibid., 5.
 III. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Whether or not a legal liability can be imposed against a player who

caused an injury to another through negligence or intentional tort.

2. Whether or not the team management can be held vicariously liable for

the negligent or tortious acts of its players.

3. Whether or not the possible imposition of legal liability against players,

coaches and team management in Philippine Basketball Association can

mitigate negligence and intentional torts.

IV. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

In this research, I will focus on investigating whether a legal liability can

be imposed against a player who caused an injury to another through

negligence or intentional tort, whether the team management can be held

vicariously liable for the deliberate acts of its players and whether the possible

imposition of legal liability against players, coaches and team management in

Philippine Basketball Association can mitigate negligence and intentional torts.

The first discussion will describe the void in Philippine law in terms of

imposition of legal liability against a player who causes an injury to another

through negligence or intentional tort. It will involve an analysis of two sports

torts cases under United States (U.S.) Jurisprudence. These are Kabella v.

Bouschelle and Griggas v. Clauson. It will include an explanation of how Article

2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines can fill the aforementioned void in

Philippine law.

The second discussion will focus on whether the team management can

be held vicariously liable for the deliberate acts of its players. It will include a

thorough discussion of vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code of

the Philippines and other foreign laws. Furthermore, it will investigate whether

the relationship between the team management and players can be considered

as an employer-employee relationship under Article 2180 of the Civil Code of

the Philippines.

The last discussion will tackle the main issue of this research which is

whether the possible imposition of legal liability against players, coaches and

team management in Philippine Basketball Association can mitigate negligence

and intentional torts. It will dwell with the possible legal liability of coaches for

the negligent or intentional acts of their players based on the Captain of the

Ship Doctrine and Master-Servant Rule. It will comprise a discussion on the

current mechanisms of the Philippine Basketball Association, the country’s

premiere basketball league, in mitigating negligence and intentional torts in the

league. Ultimately, it will answer the main question of whether the possible

imposition of legal liability against players, coaches and team management in

the league can mitigate negligence and intentional torts by examining the
mitigating effects of torts law in sports based on cases under U.S.

Jurisprudence.

V. DISCUSSION

A. LEGAL LIABILITY OF PLAYERS COMMITTING NEGLIGENCE OR

INTENTIONAL TORT IN CONTACT SPORTS

Historically, in the world of major contact sports like basketball and

football, fans enjoy seeing players playing hard against each other. Football

fans love seeing hard tackles as it display great defense. Basketball fans get

exhilarated every time they see players playing tough and aggressive. The

Detroit Pistons’ Bad Boys became so famous in the history of the National

Basketball Association (NBA) because of their physically aggressive defense.9

Fans do not really think that career-ending injuries or gruesome incidents may

possibly happen as a result of the toughness and aggressiveness of players. As

an avid basketball or football fan would always say, “That’s just part of the

game”. This kind of attitude in the world of sports rationalizes why it has been

very difficult for players to seek for legal remedies when they suffer injuries

caused by negligent or tortious acts by another.

But today, the tables have turned in the world of contact sports. The

recognition of the duty to refrain from the reckless disregard of the safety rules

of a sport has been the recent trend of United States (U.S.) sports torts cases

9
Gibbons, K. (2011). Detroit Pistons: The 5 Baddest Boys of the Bad Boys Era. Retrieved from
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/761050-detroit-pistons-the-five-baddest-boys-of-the-bad-boys-era#slide0
and U.S. courts have allowed recovery based either on intentional torts or from

the breach of said duty (gross negligence or recklessness).10 But, this kind of

development is only happening in the United States. In the current setting of

Philippine jurisprudence, the application of torts law in sports is still

unpopular.

a. Negligence and Intentional Tort under United States (U.S.)

Jurisprudence

Negligent conduct is defined as the failure to use ordinary care and

caution, as would be expected by a prudent person, for the protection of others

against an unreasonably great risk of harm.11 A tort is a private (or civil) wrong

or injury, suffered by an individual as the result of another person’s conduct.12

The degree of the defendant’s intent to harm toward the plaintiff can be

differentiated on the following three levels:

1. Intentional tort (e.g., assault and battery): intent to commit the act

and intent to harm the plaintiff

2. Reckless misconduct or gross negligence: intent to commit the act but

no intent to harm the plaintiff

3. Unintentional tort or negligence: no intent to commit the act and no

intent to harm the plaintiff but a failure to exercise reasonable care13

10
Ingles, I. (2016). Philippine Sports Torts: Adopting a Standard of Care for Sports Competitions and Establishing
Vicarious Liability for Professional Coaches.
11
Wong, G. (2010). Essentials of Sports Law 4th Edition, pg. 96.
12
Id. at 95
13
Id.
 In U.S. Jurisprudence, negligence and intentional tort have been applied

in many cases. The increase in civil cases based on negligence and

unintentional tort are brought about by the rise of medical costs that the

injured party have to meet.14 Such costs will be borne by the offending party if

he/she is proven guilty. One of the cases in U.S. Jurisprudence which invokes

negligence as a ground for recovery is the case of Kabella v. Bouschelle.

“Vance Kabella, by and through his mother as next friend, filed a suit

against Greg Bouschelle, alleging that on October 24, 1981, both Kabella and

Bouschelle with two other players were engaged in a friendly game of tackle

football. Kabella's complaint alleged that during the game he was carrying the

ball and Bouschelle attempted to tackle him. As Bouschelle grasped Kabella and

began to wrestle him down, Kabella announced several times, "I'm down," but

Bouschelle continued to tackle the plaintiff throwing him to the ground and

falling on him, causing Kabella to sustain a dislocated hip.”15

The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled against Kabella stating that he

assumed the risks of injury in playing an informal game of tackle football and

that there was no proven intentional tort or reckless conduct. This was a

manifestation that the theory negligence cannot overcome the assumption of

risk as a defense in sports torts cases.

14
Id.
15
Kabella v. Bouschelle, 672 P.2d 290 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983)
 A more popular and effective ground in sport torts cases is intentional

tort. In the case of Griggas v. Clauson,

“Robert Griggas, the 19 year-old plaintiff, was a member of and playing

center for an amateur basketball team known as the Rockford Athletic Club

Basketball Team in a basketball game with an amateur team known as

Blackhawk Athletic Club Basketball Team, of which the defendant, La Verne

Clauson, was a member. Plaintiff’s team was going for the north goal and

plaintiff was standing in the free-throw area facing south with his back to the

north basket, with defendant, on the opposing team, guarding him. Defendant

was standing directly in back of plaintiff and the evidence on behalf of the

plaintiff is that plaintiff was about to receive a pass of the ball from a teammate

when defendant pushed him and then struck him in the face with his fist and, as

plaintiff fell, struck him again, knocking him unconscious.”16

The Appellate Court of Illinois (Second District) ruled in favor of Griggas

ordering Clauson to pay $2,000 in damages. This case showed that recovery

from injuries sustained in sports competitions was possible on the basis of an

intentional tort theory.

16
Griggas v. Clauson, 6 Ill. App.2d 412 (1955)
 b. The Void in Philippine Law

Unlike the U.S. Jurisprudence, the Philippine Jurisprudence is bereft of

sports torts cases. Currently, there are no Supreme Court cases involving non-

professional or professional players seeking legal remedies on the grounds of

negligence or intentional tort. Torts, in the context of Philippine Law, are

“wrong[s] independent of a contract, which arise from an act or omission of a

person which causes some injury or damage directly or indirectly to another

person.”17 In the New Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 2176 governs

negligence and torts. It states that, “Whoever by act or omission causes

damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the

damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual

relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the

provisions of this Chapter.”18

This statute can be applied in sports torts cases. Injured players can

invoke such provision of the law as a ground to file a civil case against the

offending player. Article 2176 covers acts caused by either fault or negligence.

It has been proven in U.S. Jurisprudence that intentional tort is an effective

ground in seeking legal remedies. For example, if the case of Griggas v. Clauson

happened in the Philippines, Article 2176 can definitely be a ground by the

17
Pineda, E. (2009) Torts and Damages (Annotated)
18
Civil Code, § 2176, Rep. Act 386 (Phil.)
plaintiff to recover damages from the defendant. Such void in Philippine sports

torts can be filled by Article 2176.

B. VICARIOUS LIABILITY OF THE TEAM MANAGEMENT FOR THE

NEGLIGENT OR TORTIOUS ACTS OF ITS PLAYERS

Vicarious liability is defined in Article 2180 of the New Civil Code of the

Philippines. Art. 2180. It states that,

“The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's

own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is

responsible.

 The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are

responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live

in their company.

 Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or

incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in

their company.

 The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are

likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the

service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the

occasion of their functions.

 Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their

employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their

 assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any

business or industry.

 The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a

special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the

official to whom the task done properly pertains; in which case

what is provided in Article 2176 shall be applicable.

Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be

liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so

long as they remain in their custody. The responsibility treated of in this

article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they

observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent

damage.19

The Philippine Supreme Court has not yet decided on a case involving

vicarious liability of the team management for the negligent or tortious acts of

its players primarily because Article 2180 does not include a team manager-

player relationship on the list. In fact, such relationship cannot be added

because the list is exclusive. According to Philippine Civil Law expert Arturo

Tolentino, the article must be “construed restrictively” because it is an

“extraordinary responsibility created by way of exception to the rule that no

person can be liable for the acts or omissions of another.”20

19
Civil Code, § 2180, Rep. Act 386 (Phil.)
20
Tolentino, A. (2002), Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of The Philippines, pg. 612
 a. Vicarious Liability under Foreign Jurisprudence

In Cox v. Ministry of Justice, a case under United Kingdom

Jurisprudence, the Supreme Court defined the scope of vicarious liability. It

stated that, “The scope of vicarious liability depends upon the answers to two

questions. First, what sort of relationship has to exist between an individual

and a defendant before the defendant can be made vicariously liable in tort for

the conduct of that individual? Secondly, in what manner does the conduct of

that individual have to be related to that relationship, in order for vicarious

liability to be imposed on the defendant?”21

Following such jurisprudence, it can be inferred that it is possible for a

vicarious liability to be imposed against the team management provided that

there is an established relationship existing between the team management

and a player and there is evidence that the negligent or tortious act of the

player was done in accordance with his job as a player or an employee of the

team.

There are many existing cases in foreign jurisprudence which conclude

that the team management can be vicariously liable for the negligent or

tortious acts of its players. The English High Court in Elliott v Saunders and

Liverpool Football Club (unreported, English High Court, 10 June 1994) accepted

that in principle a professional football club could be vicariously liable for the

21
Cox v. Ministry of Justice, UKSC 2014/0089 (02 Mar 2016)
acts of its employees who negligently caused injury to another player.22 In

McCord v Cornforth and Swansea City Football Club (The Times, 11 February

1997) the High Court finally found an employing club vicariously liable for the

acts of an employee player and awarded damages to a professional footballer

whose playing career had been ended by the negligent challenge of an

opponent.23 In Watson and Bradford City Football Club v Gray and Huddersfield

Town Football Club (The Times, 26 November 1998), the defendant club was

found vicariously liable to the claimant for a career-interrupting, rather than a

career-ending, injury while in Vowles v Evans and Welsh Rugby Union [2003]

EWCA Civ 318, the Welsh Rugby Union was held to be vicariously liable for the

negligent non-application of the safety rules of rugby by one of its appointed

referees.24

In the case of Tomjanovich v. California Sports, NBA player Rudy

Tomjanovich was punched in the face by a Los Angeles (L.A.) Lakers player,

Kermit Washington. Tomjanovich suffered serious injuries, including “skull

fractures, facial lacerations, loss of blood, and leakage of brain cavity spinal

fluid.” Tomjanovich sued Washington and the L.A. Lakers. In suing the Lakers

on vicarious liability, Tomjanovich claimed that the team not only knew of the

violent disposition of Washington, but also even encouraged it by having

22
James, MD & McArdle, D, (2004) Player violence or violent players? Vicarious liability for sports participants.
Retrieved from http://usir.salford.ac.uk/1056/
23
Id.
24
Id.
Washington featured in a magazine as a league enforcer. The jury ruled in

favor of Tomjanovich, and on appeal, a settlement was reached.25

Taken as a whole, the cases are authority for the proposition either that

the negligent, and usually foul, play of the defendant player will be considered

to be authorized by the defendant club because of its integral connection with

the player’s employment by the club, or alternatively, that the injury-causing

acts are an unauthorized means of performing an act authorized by the

employing club as being a necessary part of the performance of the job.26

b. Vicarious Liability Based on Employer-employee Relationship of

the Team Management and the Player under Philippine Laws

Because the list under Article 2180 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is

exclusive, a team management-player relationship cannot be added. But, such

relationship is very similar to an employer-employee relationship which is

listed under Article 2180.

Philippine jurisprudence has been consistent in using the four-fold test

to determine the presence of an employer-employee relationship. According to

this test, for an employer-employee relationship to arise, the following elements

must be present: (1) selection and engagement of the employee; (2) payment of

25
Ingles, I. (2016). Philippine Sports Torts: Adopting a Standard of Care for Sports Competitions and Establishing
Vicarious Liability for Professional Coaches (pg. 39)
26
Id.
wages; (3) power of dismissal over the employee; and (4) power to control the

employee’s conduct.27

It was concluded that an employer-employee relationship is not present

in individual sports since the necessary element of control by the hiring parties

is not present. However, the situation of professional athletes in team sports is

different. The four elements under the four-fold test are undoubtedly present in

team sports. This form of control usually takes the form of certain philosophy

or methodology on how the players of the team must play the game.28

Inferring from the conclusion that the a team management-player

relationship can be considered an employer-employee relationship based on the

four-fold test, vicarious liability can be imposed against the team management

because it is the employer.

C. LEGAL LIABILITY OF COACHES FOR THE NEGLIGENT OR

TORTIOUS ACTS OF THEIR PLAYERS

Coaches normally have the closest relationship with athletes and have

the most direct control over them in any sport. The coach-athlete relationship

is special; hence, a heightened duty of care to prevent foreseeable risks of harm

27
Ingles, Ignatius Michael D. (2014) Playing for Wages: Defining the Legal Relationship Between Professional
Athlete and Team, a Sports Law Perspective on Philippine Labor Law (pg. 789)
28
Id.
to participants is owed by coaches.29 Because of this relationship, coaches

sometimes find themselves as defendants in lawsuits brought about by injured

athletes. But these lawsuits involve a coach against his own player/s. In Sports

Law, coaches cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligent or tortious acts

of their players. In fact, the current state of Philippine law does not make

coaches liable for the acts of their players.30

a. Captain of the Ship Doctrine: A Synthesis with Sports Law

The Captain of the Ship Doctrine states that the surgeon’s mere presence

in the operating room subjects the latter to legal liability for everyone’s

negligence in that room regardless of whether the surgeon is himself

negligent.31 This legal doctrine is very popular in the field of medical-

malpractice law and well-recognized in Philippine Jurisprudence as well.

This legal doctrine is very similar to the master-servant rule which is

currently adopted by the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) in the

United States. Under such rule, a head coach is required to cultivate an

atmosphere of compliance within his program and to monitor the activities of

all assistant coaches and administrators involved with the program who report

directly or indirectly to the head coach. The new legislation holds head coaches

29
Mirsafian, H. (2016), Legal Duties and Legal Liabilities of Coaches toward Athlete
30
Ingles, I. (2016). Philippine Sports Torts: Adopting a Standard of Care for Sports Competitions and Establishing
Vicarious Liability for Professional Coaches
31
Nonato, R. (2013) The Abandonment of the Captain of the Ship Doctrine in Light of Recent Developments in
Philippine Surgery in the Context of the Operating Room
directly accountable for NCAA violations by members of their coaching staff.32

The master/servant rule manifests that a coach can be legally liable for the

actions of his subordinates. But, such doctrine does not involve the liability of

the coach for the acts of his players.

If the Captain of the Ship Doctrine is applied in sports, it can be

interpreted that the coach, as the leader of the team, can be subjected to a

legal liability for the negligence of the players. But, such doctrine has never

been applied in the field of sports. With the limitations of the master-servant

rule and the absence of supporting legal basis both in Philippine and foreign

jurisprudence on the application of the Captain of the Ship Doctrine to sports,

it can be concluded that a coach cannot be held vicariously liable for the

negligent or tortious acts of his players.

D. MITIGATING EFFECTS OF THE POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF LEGAL

LIABILITY AGAINST PLAYERS, COACHES AND TEAM MANAGEMENT
IN PHILIPPINE BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION

The duty to refrain from the reckless disregard of the safety rules of a

sport has been the recent trend of United States (U.S.) sports torts cases and

U.S. courts have allowed recovery based either on intentional torts or from the

breach of said duty (gross negligence or recklessness). Currently, Philippine

32
Greenberg, M. (2012) Coach Accountability Reduces Vicarious Liability. Retrieved from
http://law.marquette.edu/assets/sports-law/pdf/coachacc.9913.pdf
jurisprudence is bereft of the application of torts law principles in the context

of sports.33

Today, the Philippine Basketball Association (PBA) only imposes fines

and suspensions to players who commit negligent or tortious acts on the court.

Such imposition of penalties does not give the aggrieved party any remedy to

recover damages from the guilty player or from his team. Furthermore, it does

not mitigate the growing number of unwanted incidents in Philippine

Basketball just like what happened to Samboy Lim.

Under the U.S. Jurisprudence, there have been numerous cases decided

by the Supreme Court favoring the aggrieved party in torts cases. In 1957, a

Tennessee court once again ruled in favor of the injured party after an

intentional tort was committed by an opposing player. In Averill v. Luttrell, the

parties were from opposing teams in a minor league baseball game in

Tennessee. Luttrell was up at bat, while Averill crouched behind him as

catcher. After a few pitches almost “nicked” him, Luttrell threw his bat towards

the pitcher’s mound in anger. Surprisingly, it was Averill, the catcher, who

took exception and struck Luttrell on the back of the head. The blow rendered

Luttrell unconscious, and he suffered a broken jaw as he hit the ground. The

court ruled for Luttrell, saying “the assault made by Averill ‘was no[t] part of

the ordinary risks expected to be encountered in sportsmanlike play.’”

33
Ingles, I. (2016). Philippine Sports Torts: Adopting a Standard of Care for Sports Competitions and Establishing
Vicarious Liability for Professional Coaches
 Professional and non-professional basketball players in the United States

of America are very aware that they can be held civilly liable for their negligent

or tortious acts or intentional disregard of safety rules. Such awareness

discourages them to commit such acts. A law is more powerful than the rules

and regulations of a particular league. Assuming that the State will promulgate

a law imposing a legal liability against a player or the team management for the

negligent and tortious acts of the player, it will bear more power than the fines

and suspensions that PBA currently imposes. Thus, it will be more effective in

mitigating the unlawful acts of players that more often lead to unwanted

incidents.

VI. CONCLUSION

Based on the analyses of local and foreign laws, case laws from U.S. and

U.K. Jurisprudence and certain legal doctrines, the following conclusions can

be inferred.

First, a legal liability can be imposed against a player who caused an

injury to another through negligence or intentional tort under Article 2176 of

the Civil Code of the Philippines. Second, the team management can be held

vicariously liable for the negligent or tortious acts of its players because the

team management-player relationship can be considered as an employer-

employee relationship thus under the scope of Article 2180 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines. Third, coaches cannot be held liable for the negligent and

tortious acts of their players because of the absence of any statute providing

such liability. Furthermore, the Captain of the Ship Doctrine which implies the

legal liability of coaches cannot be applied in the field of sports because of the

absence of any supporting case laws. Finally, the possible imposition of legal

liability against the players and team management in Philippine Basketball

Association has a high propensity of mitigating negligence and intentional torts

in the league.

Without a set standard, injured players in the Philippines find it difficult to

recover, especially when faced with tort defenses such as the assumption of

risk.34 This research ultimately aims to propose how legal liability imposed

against players committing negligence and intentional torts to cause injury to

another can mitigate cases and incidents of gruesome and possible life-ending

injuries just like what happened to Samboy Lim.

This research seeks to provide a safety net for professional athletes in such

instances. Furthermore, this can increase the diligence of the team

management on how to supervise players especially those who have history of

committing negligent deliberate acts.

34
Ingles, I. (2016). Philippine Sports Torts: Adopting a Standard of Care for Sports Competitions and Establishing
Vicarious Liability for Professional Coaches (pg. 5)
 The recovery of Samboy Lim from the gruesome injury was almost a miracle.

That injury could have ended his career and fans would have not witnessed his

legacy. But it is not all the time that miracles happen so we have to initiate

actions that would prevent such incidents in happening again.