In a landmark judgment in the Western Cape High Court yesterday, a former school rugby player won his case against an opposing player who injured him so severely during a scrum that it left him with a broken neck.

The ruling could serve as a legal precedent for civil claims against players of any sport found to have deliberately injured a player during a game.

The incident occurred in 2005. Ryand Hattingh, now 25, was in matric at Labori High School in Paarl when he injured his neck in a school rugby match.

He was a hooker for the team and claimed that his neck fracture was as a result of a deliberate action by the opposing team’s hooker, Alex Roux.

Roux was believed to have incited his team members to perform an “illegal and dangerous” manoeuvre coded “jack-knife”, which meant his head went into the wrong gap in the scrum and collapsed on Hattingh’s neck. At the time, Western Province assistant coach Matthew Proudfoot and scrum coach Balie Swart testified that things were “rather chaotic” at schoolboy level.

In his judgment, Judge Burton Fourie ruled that the actions of Alex Roux, then a Stellenbosch High School hooker, was an “unlawful and extremely dangerous manoeuvre”. Citing evidence from rugby experts, he said it was clear from his findings that Roux’s actions had been “deliberate and intentional”.

Judge Fourie said: “This conduct by Alex was not only forbidden by the laws of the game, but constituted such a serious transgression, not normally associated with the game of rugby, that it would not reasonably have been expected to occur in a rugby game.”

Both players told the court they had not experienced the manoeuvre in their careers.

The judge quoted scrum coach Balie Swart’s testimony in which he said that, although he had seen the manoeuvre being executed, it was “illegal and extremely dangerous and is used in an effort to dominate the opposing team by disrupting their scrum … the placing of his head in the wrong channel of the scrum was, judged on evidence from the court, a planned move, deliberately executed, well knowing that injury was a result thereof”.

Judge Fourie said, because rugby was a high-speed contact sport, there would always be risk of injury. Players could expect to be injured ,but this did not mean players could deliberately injure another player.

“The injured player should not, by virtue of the game, be regarded as having consented to the risk of being injured as a result of serious aggressions, which are not normally associated with the game of rugby.”

Judge Fourie ruled that Hattingh and his father were entitled to damages suffered from the neck injury and the costs of their counsel and expert witnesses. The damages Roux’s father is liable for have not yet been determined, but is expected to run into millions.

After the judgment, Hattingh was “speechless” at the ruling. “At the moment, I am still speechless but I am just glad it’s over because it’s been six years since it happened.”

Hattingh’s attorney, Allan Jones, said it was a landmark judgment which “established a principle that when a player does something out of the rules of the game it is considered to be an offence and unlawful” and could apply to any game, and attract civil liability.

Jurie Roux, South African Rugby Union chief executive, said it was clear from the verdict that the injury was caused by actions outside rugby laws. This underlined the importance of BokSmart, the national rugby safety programme. Deputy CEO of Western Province rugby Herman Abrahams said: “Any manoeuvre that is dangerous must be punished by a referee and if someone gets injured then it can be taken further. That is why you have to play within the rules and take responsibility for your actions. This case must just make everyone more aware of how important it is to play within the rules and it is a message we are bringing out more strongly.”

Former Springbok Corné Krige said it was “tragic” when players were injured and hoped the judgment did not give the game a bad name.

“It’s even more tragic when a young person gets injured for life and can’t play any more. The judgment does create a bit of a problem as rugby is a physical game and players try to be as physically intimidating as possible.”

While respecting the judgment and sympathising with the injured boy, he worried what it might do to the game at school level, he said, adding, “I don’t think most injuries happen with someone doing something illegal deliberately on the field.”