Flying vs. Jump Kicks: Defining Ordinary Action in Sport

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorPurcell, Alexander
dc.contributor.authorYoung, Sarah J
dc.date.accessioned2025-02-20T15:47:40Z
dc.date.available2025-02-20T15:47:40Z
dc.date.issued2018-01-05
dc.descriptionThis record is for a(n) postprint of an article published by SHAPE America in Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance on 2018-01-05; the version of record is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2018.1393226.
dc.description.abstractMegenty was injured while holding a standing padded bag when a fellow karate participant performed a jump kick instead of a flying kick into the bag. The Megenity v. Dunn ruling supports the general concept of primary assumption of risk and places the responsibility of understanding the associated risks of a sport on the participants.
dc.description.versionpostprint
dc.identifier.citationPurcell, Alexander, and Young, Sarah J. "Flying vs. Jump Kicks: Defining Ordinary Action in Sport." Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance, 2018-1-5, https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2018.1393226.
dc.identifier.issn0730-3084
dc.identifier.otherBRITE 4328
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2022/31197
dc.language.isoen
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.2018.1393226
dc.relation.journalJournal of Physical Education, Recreation, & Dance
dc.titleFlying vs. Jump Kicks: Defining Ordinary Action in Sport

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
4328_flying-vs-jump-kicks.pdf
Size:
94.05 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Faculty Open Access Articles
Can’t use the file because of accessibility barriers? Contact us