Just to add some further analysis on the case, as per what Teaser wrote, I am a solicitor who was part of the team who acted on the Ben Collett v Middlesbrough FC High Court case in 2008. I was involved with the trial and general work around the quantum (the amount of loss claimed) and the liability, which I believe is being decided in Tom's case today, was already settled before my involvement.
Tom's case will be that Frank Sinclair and Wrexham FC, who are vicariously liable for their employees, broke their duty of care to Tom and ended his career. The existence of a duty of care here is not in doubt, the elements of proximity and the defendant being placed in a position of responsibility is clear.
The issue is the breach and I suspect this is the crux. I did not see the tackle but a breach of duty would have to involve Sinclair not applying due care and skill in the challenge. Obviously, the standard set for the breach will be different in the circumstances. A conference player would not be expected to have the same degree of skill as a Premier League player. However, as we all know, there are challenges which are wreckless at any level, which inevitably get red cards, this would fit the 'reasonableness' test of whether the due care and skill was applied. I'll leave it for the Court to decide. Obviously, once that's proved then causation and loss should be fairly comfortable (unless Tom's surgeon is somehow to blame for his injury not healing and thereby ending his career).
The BIG issue from the Collett case was that clubs had always taken out insurance policies to protect them from the loss that their own player would be injured and have their career ended. However, as a result of the case, it became established that as clubs owed a duty to other players as a reuslt of their own employee's actions, they should/would have to take out insurance for claims made against them as a result of their players' negligent actions. Therefore, as I saw Middlesborough's insurers pay out £4.5m to Ben Collett, I would expect that Wrexham will have had cover in place (much like any business will insure against losses caused by an employee's actions), or would have retrospectively purchased insurance cover for the eventuality of losing this case.
Anyway, let's hope Tom wins.
Ancoats Alty