Hudson v. Craft – Case Brief
Hudson v. Craft, 33 Cal.2d 654, 204 P.2d 1 (Cal.1949).
Facts: Craft (D) operated a boxing exhibition without a license at a carnival. Hudson (P) participated in the exhibition which offered a prize of five dollars. Hudson suffered injuries and sued Craft for damages on the grounds that Craft operated the match without a license. The lower court dismissed P’s case for failure to amend his complaint and P appealed.
Issue: Under what circumstances can a party be liable for damages resulting from assault and battery if that party did not commit any physical act toward another party?
Holding and Rule: If the promoter of a boxing exhibition does not comply with the applicable statutes, did not obtain a license, and did not observe the rules and regulations, they can be liable for damages for a participant’s injuries. Voluntary assumption of risk (volenti non fit injuria) by the injured party does not excuse the promoter of liability. The purpose of licensing this kind of business is to protect participants. Therefore D is liable as matter of public policy. Because public policy is designed to protect participants by making boxing matches illegal without a license, there was no consent (no one can consent to breach of the peace). There was a statutory provision that stated that the consent of the parties involved would not relieve the carnival from liability.
Disposition: Reversed.
Notes: The majority view states that when there is mutual consent, both parties can recover from each other for battery. The minority view, taken from Restatements of Torts, is that mutual consent prevents a battery from being tortious.