Will there be a conviction?: Lawsuit by Mike Glemser – “The case law is very clear”

A body check changed the life of ice hockey player Mike Glemser forever. Now he is suing his opponent. Sports lawyer Christoph Schickhardt explains what would lead to a conviction and what the lawsuit means for the sport.

A body check in the game between the Starbulls Rosenheim and the SC Riessersee changed Mike Glemser’s life forever. A split second in a game in the Ice Hockey Oberliga South when Jan Niklas Pietsch touched him and Glemser fell head first into the boards. Two vertebrae in his neck broke and the then 25-year-old was paralyzed from the start.

A tragic case that is now also being dealt with by the courts. On August 27, Glemser filed a lawsuit against his opponent at the Munich II Regional Court. The case involves compensation for pain and suffering amounting to 650,000 euros and the determination that Pietsch should be liable for possible consequential damages, meaning the value in dispute is 822,000 euros.

Lawyer Schickhardt: “The severity of the injury is not a prerequisite”

Christoph Schickhardt specializes in the law of professional sports and is considered one of the leading sports lawyers in Germany. He has handled similar cases himself and was the lawyer for professional football player Karl Allgöwer when he sued Bodo Illgner for knocking him over without a chance to get the ball and leaving him with a torn shoulder. Allgöwer and Illgner reached an out-of-court settlement for around 15,000 marks in damages.

The amount involved in the Glemser case is significantly higher due to the severity of the injury. However, this has no impact on a possible conviction, explains Schickhardt in an exclusive interview with BR24Sport: “It is very important: the severity of the injury is not a prerequisite for a sentence. He would have to face the trial immediately if he could not go on holiday.” “Because he was injured at short notice,” said the lawyer.

Glemser case: normal foul or unsportsmanlike conduct?

Two factors are crucial for a conviction: “First of all, the most important thing and the basic prerequisite for a lawsuit is that there is a violation of the rules of this sport. That seems to be the case here,” explained Schickhardt. But a foul does not automatically mean a claim for damages.

The decisive factor is the difference between “combative toughness”, which varies from sport to sport, and “unfairness”. A shove or a sliding tackle would normally be punishable in gymnastics, but in football such actions are everyday occurrences. “Everyone who takes part in this sport has practically given their consent to such normal violations of the rules. They are not covered by compensation. Otherwise thousands of cases would end up in court.”

Spinal injuries in sport: “No one consents to injustice”

The decisive factor is whether an action was unfair. “Nobody wants to be involved in injustice,” explains Schickhardt. A deliberate tackle by a football defender without a chance to make contact with the ball is relevant under civil law. “In basketball – which used to be a non-physical game – the standards are completely different to those in ice hockey. Ice hockey is a very extreme contact sport. A body check is part of it. The hurdles of combative toughness and unfairness are much higher,” says Schickhardt. It would be complicated to prove that Pietsch committed such an act.

Glemser quote “not a good start to the process”

Last year, Glemser said that Pietsch should not blame himself: “A check like this is part of the sport.” A statement that contradicts precisely this requirement for a conviction. Glemser explained in an Instagram post that he had made these sales promises in order to avert a shitstorm against Pietsch and to spare the sport damage. Nevertheless, in Schickhardt’s eyes, this quote is “not a good start to the trial because it says exactly what would mean that he himself has no claim. But the court will not make that the most important basis, but will examine the case closely.”

Impact on sport: “This is not a model case”

Schickhardt did not expect any impact on ice hockey, as fans have recently discussed and as Pietsch’s lawyer Wolfram Chech had also suggested to Bild. “The facts have been established since the early 1980s. There are countless judgements on the subject. This is not a model case or one with far-reaching effects – and contact sports will remain contact sports, otherwise they would already have been abolished.

How exactly the court will decide remains to be seen. However, according to Schickhardt, there will be no far-reaching consequences for sport, regardless of the outcome of the proceedings. However, the same cannot be said of the plaintiffs and defendants.

“This is Bavaria”: The BR24 newsletter informs you every Monday to Friday at the end of the working day about the most important things of the day at a glance – compact and directly in your private mailbox. Click here to register!

Source: BR24Sport on the radio 11.09.2024 – 15:55