FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 3,088 times | Saved to 409 briefcases
Agar v Canning (1965), 54 WWR 302 (Man QB)


During the course of a hockey game, Canning hit Agar in the face with a hockey stick, knocking him unconscious. A had tried to stop C from getting away but hit C in the neck with his stick. C turned around and hit A in the face. A suffered sever injuries (can’t see in one eye, injured nose etc).


Did this exceed the implied consent to harm arising from an ordinary hockey game?


Consent does not give blanket immunity from liability. Conduct exceeding consent renders a defendant liable for injuries that result.


In this case, it is about deliberate intention to injure.

Although hockey is a violent sport (where injuries are common) there is a limit to immunity from liability. Injuries inflicted in circumstances which show intent to cause serious injury exceed what was consented to. Note that judge decided there was provocation, and took this in to account when assessing damages (reduced damages by 1/3).


Decision in favour of Agar, Canning exceeded consent.


  1. covert 2

    Is fighting part of the sport?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.