The Redefinition of Fairness in Sports Since the Arrival of Comparative Fault Tort Reform

The Advent Of Comparative Fault Tort Reform In Sports

The law is a codified approach to human interactions. As such, the role of the law, at least in part, is to maintain the delicate balance between individual rights and community interests. Historically, until the mid-1980s, community interests were weighted more heavily, and perceived to be more important than individual rights. This was manifested in a variety of ways, notable among which was the establishment of, and adherence to the contributory negligence rule. Notably, contributory negligence summarily precluded plaintiffs from any and all recovery, if it could be demonstrated that they, the plaintiffs, contributed to their own injury in any way (Keeton, Dobbs, Keeton, & Own, 1984; Sells, 1994).

To properly understand how the contributory negligence rule and its preclusion of plaintiff recovery facilitates a balance tipped in the favor of community interests over individual rights, one would do well to consider two associated notions. First, when accidents happen, how often are people quick to attempt to appear innocent? Often, this appears as one party emphasizing the blame of others as a means to veiling, or at the least making it difficult to recognize their own fault. Also, secondly, when people are honest with themselves, how often do accidents happen that are only the fault of one party?