When participating in athletic games, there have been risks in which participants may be injured by activities of other participants. If normal injuries have occurred, the player may consider that he or she should bear his
or her injuries. However, i...
When participating in athletic games, there have been risks in which participants may be injured by activities of other participants. If normal injuries have occurred, the player may consider that he or she should bear his
or her injuries. However, if severe injures have come in the course of sports activities, the circumstances would be different. The sports player would not willingly take his or her injures, if the harms have been beyond its ordinary expectation.
Several media have reported the Supreme Court’s decision sentenced on January 31, 2019, 2017 Da203596, and the Korean public have paid attention to the Court’s ruling. The first trial and the Supreme Court concluded that the defendant was not responsible for the goalkeeper’s injuries. On the other hand, the second trial court ruled in favor of some of the injured soccer player.
In this article, this author has examined the duty of care of those who have participated in sports games. This article was made up of all five. In II., this author has summarized the facts and court’s judgments and their legal grounds. In III., this author has sought to find “safety care duty,” in structure of obligations and to categorize the Korean Supreme Courts’ cases concerning the safety care duty. In IV., this author has studied US courts cases which have occurred in sports and recreation games for a comparative legal viewpoint of duty of care. In V., this author has summarized and attempt to provide directions for which we may need to look for.