Nabozny v. Barnhill
Illinois Appellate Court
334 N.E.2d 258 (1975)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Julian Nabozny (plaintiff) and David Barnhill (defendant) were on opposing soccer teams of high-school-age players. Nabozny was the goalkeeper for the Hansa team, while Barnhill was a forward for the Winnetka team. At one point in a game governed by a soccer association’s rules, Nabozny crouched down in the penalty area of the goal he was defending to receive a passed ball. Nabozny took possession of the ball with his hands and pulled the ball into his chest. Barnhill, who had been chasing the passer, continued running toward Nabozny and kicked the left side of Nabozny’s head, causing permanent damage to Nabozny’s skull and brain. Nabozny sued Barnhill for negligence. During a jury trial, three experts agreed that the game rules prohibited all players from making contact with the goalkeeper when he is in possession of the ball in the penalty area, possession being defined as having hands on the ball. The experts further agreed that Barnhill should not have made contact with Nabozny, that he should have instinctively avoided Nabozny, and that goalkeepers were extremely rarely injured in the game of soccer. The trial court granted Barnhill’s motion for directed verdict, preventing the jury from rendering a verdict. Nabozny appealed, arguing that he had established a prima facie case of negligence, Barnhill owed a duty of care, and Nabozny was not contributorily negligent.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Adesko, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.