Hudson v. Craft
 | This article needs attention from an expert in Law. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. (November 2008) |
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.
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. 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.
External links
 | This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |