Summary of Hudson v. Craft (1949), 204 P.2d 1
Procedural history: P filed suit for damages for injuries as a result of participation in an illegal boxing match. D filed a demurrer, which trial court sustained, and thus, suit was dismissed. P appealed. Judgment reversed, ruling for P.
Facts: D were conducting a carnival where one of the concessions was a boxing exhibition. D were not licensed to conduct the match, and the match was being conducted in violation of the Penal Code, the State Athletic Commission, and the Business and Professions code. P was 18. P agreed to participate in a boxing match on a promise from D of receiving $5. P suffered personal injuries as a result of being struck by his opponent.
Issues: Is a case where willing participants in an illegal, organized game actionable? >Yes.
Can a promoter of an illegal game be held liable, even if he has the consent of the contestants? >Yes.
Holding: Promoter must be held liable as a principal, regardless of the rule governing the action between the combatants. Judgment is reversed.
Rationale: Promoter violated nearly all sections of the law relating to boxing matches, so he is liable regardless of the rights between the contestants, and that the consent given to each other by the contestants does not relieve him of liability.
Is this case compatible with case in Note 2, p. 30? Barton v. Bee line? No. Court says Barton cannot recover because she consented. Which case was right? Was she wronged if she consented?
Ø Her consent was not visciated by fraud. Was she able to consent for principles of tort? If she is unable to sue, than this is the case. By criminal statute, she is not capable of consent, regardless.
Ø In this manner, how did the promoter wrong Hudson?
o Promoter offered a money prize to get people to fight.
Ø Does it matter who initiated the action? (Whether she seduced the bus driver or vice versa?)