In the Pat Dunn V. Chris LePuck case I am in favor of the defendant, Chris LePuck. The plaintiff, Pat Dunn, an experienced hockey player, knowingly and voluntarily entered the hockey game in which he suffered severe injuries. By nature of the sport, hockey games require players to have contact with each other. Dunn had the responsibility to assume the risk when he entered the game. The plaintiff also failed to wear a helmet during the game making him negligent. Not only did the plaintiff fail to wear a helmet, he is also guilty of negligence because he punched LePuck in the face while Dunn had a hockey glove on his hand. It is well known in hockey that punching someone in the face with a hockey glove is equivalent to being punched in the face with brass knuckles. Since Dunn was negligent with his …show more content…
Chris LePuck case. LePuck claims that Dunn had deliberately tripped him, however Dunn claims that he accidentally tripped LePuck. In response to being tripped LePuck tripped Dunn as well. When LePuck got up from being tripped Dunn punched LePuck in the face. In reaction to being punched in the face LePuck swung his stick and hit Dunn in the head knocking him out. In the court case The People of the State of New York (Plaintiff) v. John Freer (Defendant), the defendant claimed “self defense”. The complainant and the defendant were playing against each other in a high school football game. The defendant was carrying the ball when the complainant tackled him. During the tackle, the complainant punched the defendant in the throat. Both players fell to the ground and a fight broke out. When the players stood up the defendant punched the complainant in the eye, which lead to a laceration and plastic surgery. There were two types of defense presented in this case, one being the consent defense, and the second being self defense (People v. Freer, 1976). When it came to self defense, the court