Hudson_v._Craft

<i>Hudson v. Craft</i>

Hudson v. Craft

Add article description

Hudson v. Craft (33 Cal.2d 654, 1949) is a United States court case defining how the court defines consent as a defense to an intentional harm.[1]

Quick Facts Hudson v. Craft, Decided March 22, 1949 ...

Facts of the Case

The Defendants were conducting a carnival where one of the concessions was a boxing exhibition, which was conducted in violation of statutory provisions, distributed prizes and prize money to the contestants, and no license had been issued.[2] The Plaintiff engaged in a boxing match after being solicited by the Defendants and thereby consented to the contest.

Ruling

The central holding was that an individual cannot consent to an illegal act. Therefore, regardless of whether or not the two individual fighters consented, the promoter could still be held liable for damages.

The court did not make a direct ruling to the suit between the two boxers.

References

  1. [1]
    California (State). California. Court of Appeal (1st Appellate District). Records and Briefs: 4CIV19157, Respondent Brief. p. 9.
  2. [2]
    Landes, William M.; Posner, Richard A. (December 1, 1981). "An economic theory of intentional torts". International Review of Law and Economics. 1 (2): 127–154. doi:10.1016/0144-8188(81)90012-0. ISSN 0144-8188.


Stub icon

This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Share this article:

This article uses material from the Wikipedia article Hudson_v._Craft, and is written by contributors. Text is available under a CC BY-SA 4.0 International License; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.