Agar v Hyde, Agar v Worsley

The High Court of Australia considered appeals in two related cases, *Agar v Hyde* and *Agar v Worsley*. The disputes arose from injuries sustained by the plaintiffs, Mr. Agar and Mr. Worsley, during a rugby union scrum. Both plaintiffs alleged negligence against the organisers of the rugby match, the Australian Rugby Football League (ARFL), and the club that fielded the opposing team, the Manly Rugby Football Club. The core of the plaintiffs' claims was that the defendants failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of players participating in the match, specifically concerning the scrum formation and the conduct of players within it.

The High Court was required to determine whether the ARFL and Manly Rugby Football Club owed a duty of care to the players, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to consider the scope of the duty of care owed by sporting organisations to participants, particularly in relation to inherent risks of the sport. The question was whether the defendants had failed to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks of injury that were not inherent to the game of rugby union.

The Court held that sporting organisations do owe a duty of care to participants to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable injury. However, this duty does not extend to eliminating all risks of injury, particularly those that are inherent to the nature of the sport. The Court found that the risks associated with a rugby scrum, including the potential for injury, were inherent to the game. The plaintiffs had not established that the defendants had failed to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks that were outside the inherent risks of the sport. The Court concluded that the defendants had not breached their duty of care.

The appeals were dismissed.