Hudson v. Craft

Hudson v. Craft
Hudson v. Craft
	Supreme Court of California
Decided March 22, 1949
Full case name	Guy C. Hudson, a Minor, etc., et al., Appellants, v. Orville Craft, et al., Respondents.
Citation(s)	33 Cal.2d 654; 204 P.2d 1
Holding
	It is not possible for an individual to consent to an unlawful act or deliberate harm. Judgement reversed.
Court membership
Chief Justice	Phil S. Gibson
Associate Justices	John W. Shenk, Douglas L. Edmonds, Jesse W. Carter, Roger J. Traynor, B. Rey Schauer, Homer R. Spence
Case opinions
Majority	Carter, joined by Gibson, Shenk, Traynor, Schauer, Spence
Concurrence	Edmonds

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]

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

California (State). California. Court of Appeal (1st Appellate District). Records and Briefs: 4CIV19157, Respondent Brief. p. 9.
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.

External links

Text of Hudson v. Craft is available from: Stanford Law Library

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.

[1] California (State). California. Court of Appeal (1st Appellate District). Records and Briefs: 4CIV19157, Respondent Brief. p. 9.

[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.