A New York state court has sided with the New York State Athletic Commission, and found that it has no liability to a boxer, who claimed the Commission was negligent when it allegedly mishandled a weigh-in that allowed his opponent to come in at a higher weight. This, the plaintiff had claimed, contributed to a second round knockout, and more importantly, ended his career, due to the severity of the blows he suffered that night.
In so ruling, the court found that no connection would be made between the extra weight and the damage suffered by the plaintiff.
The incident occurred on February 26, 2000 at Madison Square Garden
Junior welterweight fighters Joey Gamache and Arturo Gatti were boxing on the undercard that night with a welterweight match between Oscar De La Hoya and Derrell Coley being the main event. The bout was authorized and fought under the supervision of the Commission. Early in the second round Gatti knocked out Gamache. The latter suffered head injuries that ended his boxing career.
Gamache sued, alleging that the official weigh-in for the bout, conducted by Commission officials on the day before the fight, was done negligently. The fighters had contracted to weigh no more than 141 pounds. The plaintiff alleged that Gatti did not make this contract weight, yet despite objections at the weigh-in from the Gamache camp that he did not, Gatti was allowed by the Commission to fight anyway. Gamache argued that the result of the Commission’s failure to enforce the applicable contract weight at the weigh-in was that Gatti then was able to rehydrate and further nourish himself in the ensuing 30 hours before the bout, and thus came into the ring weighing approximately 20 pounds over the prescribed weight for the fight, three or four weight classifications above the junior welterweight category they were fighting in. The weight mismatch, according to Gamache, enabled Gatti to land punches that were far more powerful, and thus damaging, which resulted in Gamache being quickly knocked out and seriously injured.
Gamache’s counsel said in his opening statement: “This case is not about a mismatch of skill. It’s about a mismatch of the size that came about as a direct result of the State’s failure to uphold their rules and regulations.”
Gatti countered that he did make the 141 pound weight limit prescribed for the fight. Any subsequent weight gain that Gatti was able to achieve during the customary rehydration and replenishment period after the weigh-in and before the fight was permissible and is the only explanation for why Gatti may have appeared bigger and heavier than Gamache on fight night. Gatti also contended that if Gamache’s corner believed the weigh-in was not conducted properly, they did not lodge an effective protest at the time.
In its analysis, the court concluded that there was enough evidence to determine that “the Commission, by its officials and employees, violated its duty of care to Gamache as a licensed boxer under the Commission’s jurisdiction and control, in its performance of the ministerial act of conducting the official weigh-in of Arturo Gatti on February 25, 2000.”
They showed that Gatti was allowed to get off the scale before it reasonably could be determined that he “made weight,” and, “more likely than not, Gatti weighed in excess of the 141 pound contract weight at the time of the official weigh-in.”
However, the court also found that the botched weigh-in “failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that the Commission’s ministerial breach of duty in this regard was the proximate cause of the career-ending defeat and injuries sustained by Gamache in the fight itself. And thus defendant is not liable to claimants for its negligence.”
The court elaborated later in its opinion, writing “the serious departures from a standard of reasonable care notwithstanding, it remains black letter law that proof of negligence, by itself, is not enough to establish liability for negligent misconduct; it also must appear that defendant’s act or omission was a proximate cause of Gamache’s injury. Burgos v Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 NY2d 544, 550 (1998).”
The court also found that “any other allegedly negligent acts or omissions of the Commission after the official weigh-in and before the fight were matters entirely within the discretion of Commission officials and employees, and, as a matter of law, cannot be a basis for finding defendant liable here. These are:
“(i)Permitting the boxers to enter the ring and fight when it appeared on fight night that Gatti may have weighed in excess of the 151-pound maximum allowable weight for a junior welterweight boxer. The only weight which counts for purposes of the ministerial decision of determining that boxers have met the contract weight is the weight at the official weigh-in. Thereafter, boxers are permitted to rehydrate, replenish and gain as much weight as they want, subject only to any entirely discretionary decisions the Commission may deem necessary in the interest of the health and safety of the fighters, such as conducting another official weigh-in at fight time. No admissible evidence was introduced as to what Gatti weighed at the time of the fight itself, and claimant did not prove by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence that Gatti weighed in excess of 151 pounds at the official weigh-in.
“(ii)Allowing the boxers to use 8 ounce gloves, instead of 10 ounce gloves with more padding, when it appeared on fight night that Gatti may have weighed in excess of 154 pounds. Again, the only weight that counts is the weight at the official weigh-in, and any other gloving decisions that may be predicated on perceived weight increases which occurred after the official weigh-in were matters entirely within the discretion of Commission officials.”
Joey Gamache et al, v. The State of New York; Ct. Claims N.Y.; 106968, 2010 NY Slip Op 20110; 2010 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 637; 3/26/10
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Sullivan & Galleshaw, LLP, By: Keith Sullivan, Esq., Fasulo, Shalley & DiMaggio, By: Louis V. Fasulo, Esq. (for defendant) Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, By: Ross N. Herman, Esq., Assistant Attorney General.
