As first reported by Conduct Detrimental, Mark Hunt’s appeal in his doping lawsuit against the UFC has been revived.

Prior to a July 2016 bout between Hunt and former heavyweight champion Brock Lesnar, the UFC waived their normal doping protocols for Lesnar as an athlete rejoining their USADA testing pool. After Lesnar scored a victory via unanimous decision, the WWE star tested positive for various banned substances.

Consequently, Hunt sued the UFC’s parent company, president Dana White, and Lesnar the following year. A district court went on to dismiss the lawsuit in full in November 2019.

Mark Hunt goes after UFC and Dana White after getting ‘good news’ regarding his lawsuit against the promotion

While the lawsuit made several allegations against the defendants, the most straightforward ones were that Hunt never consented to fight an opponent, not in the USADA pool and the situation ended up causing him and his reputation harm. The district court dismissed this aspect of the claim, finding that athletes in MMA implicitly consent to fight doping opponents as an inherent risk of the sport. A finding that many MMA athletes strongly disagree with.

On appeal, Hunt’s claims based on fraud and battery were revived. In doing so the appellate court disagreed with the reasoning that MMA fighters consent to fight doping opponents, noting that this matter needs to be addressed at full trial. The case is now cleared to head to trial to obtain a ruling on this crucial issue.

Hunt posted on his Instagram page regarding some “good news” and fired major shots at White and UFC brass regarding the ongoing suit.

“U f*ckers said to me many many moons ago if I was a gambling man and I will ask u here the same question because u ain’t eva going to get rid of me,” Hunt wrote on the videos caption. “I’m a motherf*cken gangsta and I got that rusty fork waiting for all of your bitch ass eyeballs. [Dana White] u better kill me bra u ain’t going anywhere G. u and your little pussy freinds, u bitches have stolen from so many of us fighters and our families finally justice is about to start for u punk motherfuckers enjoy it bitch and all of those who scoffed and laughed at me and said all sorts of shit u can all kiss my black a** u filthy coward f*cks.”

https://www.instagram.com/p/CUOGyEFBsuI

Court overturns Hunt’s lawsuit dismissal

The following reasons were given in the appellate court ruling:

We also reverse the district court’s dismissal of Hunt’s battery and aiding and abetting battery claims. A battery is an intentional and offensive touching of a person who has not consented to the touching . . . .
… Although [c]onsent negates the existence of the tort, … [t]o be effective, consent must be . . . to the particular conduct, or to substantially the same conduct. …Because the Nevada Supreme Court has not spoken to the question whether, or to what extent, a battery claim may be brought on the basis of conduct in sporting activities, we must predict how that court would decide the issue.

The principles of assumption of risk and of consent are similar. ….Nevertheless, the Restatement draws an important distinction between the two, identifying assumption of risk as [c]onsent to conduct that is merely negligent, creating an unreasonable risk of harm, and specifying that the concept is explained in a chapter separate and apart from the discussion of consent. …Thus, although the Restatement does counsel that [o]ne who effectively consents to conduct of another intended to invade his interests cannot recover in an action of tort . . ., that principle does not apply to assumption of risk…

The below noteworthy footnote accompanied the reasons, making it clear exactly the legal importance of what is at stake:

Even if the Supreme Court of Nevada were to conclude otherwise, dismissal of Hunt’s battery claims would not be appropriate at the pleading stage. The California Supreme Court’s application of assumption of the risk principles in Avila v. Citrus Community College District was predicated on a factual finding that intentional beaning is within the range of ordinary baseball activity. Avila, 38 Cal. 4th at 165, 171 (Kennard, J, dissenting). Here, there has been no similar conclusion that doping is within the normal scope of organized MMA activity, nor does the question appear to be beyond reasonable dispute.

Author Erik Magraken is a British Columbia litigation lawyer, combat sports law consultant, combat sports law blogger, and guest contributor for the site.