Former boxing champion Heather Hardy is suing Jake Paul and Most Valuable Promotions for more than $10 million, alleging that her final fight left her with permanent neurological injuries. But boxing is a sport built around getting hit. So can a professional fighter actually sue over injuries suffered in the ring?
The answer isn’t as simple as you might think.
Former WBO featherweight champion Heather Hardy filed a federal lawsuit on September 23, 2026, against Jake Paul, Most Valuable Promotions (MVP), Holden Boxing and promoter Bryce Holden. The lawsuit arises from Hardy’s August 2023 rematch against Amanda Serrano in Dallas.
Hardy alleges that the defendants negligently allowed the fight to proceed despite concerns about the risk of neurological injury. She claims she suffered permanent brain injury and subsequent problems involving her vision, memory and ability to work. Her lawsuit also includes claims involving the federal Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act.
MVP disputes the allegations. The company has said Hardy was medically cleared by the athletic commission overseeing the event, that her participation was arranged through her promoter, and that applicable medical and safety protocols were followed.
At this stage, these are allegations and defenses in a newly filed lawsuit. No court has determined that Jake Paul, MVP or any other defendant was negligent or legally responsible for Hardy’s injuries.
But the case raises a fascinating question for personal injury lawyers:
Doesn’t a Boxer Assume the Risk of Getting Hurt?
To a significant extent, yes.
Let’s imagine this happened in California.
California recognizes what’s known as the primary assumption of risk doctrine in sports and recreational activities. In simple terms, someone voluntarily participating in a sport generally cannot hold another person responsible for injuries resulting from risks that are inherent in that sport.
And it’s difficult to imagine a clearer example than boxing.
A professional boxer obviously understands that she may be punched in the head. Cuts, broken noses, concussions and other injuries are foreseeable risks associated with boxing.
A fighter generally couldn’t step into a boxing ring, suffer an otherwise ordinary punch permitted by the sport, and successfully argue:
“Nobody warned me I might get hurt.”
Getting hit is literally part of the sport.
But that’s not necessarily where the analysis ends.
Assumption of Risk Doesn’t Automatically Excuse Everything
California law distinguishes between injuries arising from the inherent risks of a sport and situations in which someone’s conduct may increase the risks beyond those inherent in the activity.
That’s where cases like Hardy’s become legally interesting.
Her allegations aren’t simply:
“I boxed Amanda Serrano and she punched me.”
Hardy instead alleges, among other things, that people involved in arranging the fight knew or should have known that the matchup exposed her to an extraordinary neurological risk and nevertheless allowed the fight to proceed.
Whether she can actually prove those allegations—and whether they create legal liability under the law applicable to her Texas case—is an entirely different question.
But in a hypothetical California case, a personal injury attorney would want to investigate questions such as:
What did the promoters know about the fighter’s medical condition?
Were there warnings from doctors, trainers or other professionals?
Was the fighter properly medically evaluated and cleared?
Were required safety procedures followed?
Did anyone conceal important information?
Did someone’s conduct increase the danger beyond the risks normally inherent in boxing?
California courts look at the nature of the particular sport and the parties’ relationship to the activity when determining whether primary assumption of risk applies.
That’s a much more complicated analysis than simply saying, “She knew boxing was dangerous.”
What If the Boxer Signed a Liability Waiver?
That’s another question we hear constantly:
“But didn’t she sign a waiver?”
Maybe. And if a participant signs an enforceable release covering the particular conduct at issue, it can be extremely important.
Under California law, liability releases associated with recreational sports can generally be enforceable as to ordinary negligence, assuming the language and circumstances satisfy California’s requirements. California courts have recognized that a valid release can preclude liability for injuries falling within its scope.
But a waiver isn’t magical.
The exact wording matters.
The circumstances under which it was signed matter.
The conduct the waiver actually covers matters.
And California law does not necessarily permit someone to contract away responsibility for every conceivable type of misconduct.
So when someone tells us, “I got hurt, but I signed a waiver,” our response isn’t automatically, “You don’t have a case.”
Our response is:
“Let us see the waiver.”
Medical Clearance Doesn’t Necessarily Answer Every Liability Question Either
MVP’s response raises another interesting issue.
The company says Hardy was medically cleared to compete by the athletic commission and that the bout proceeded under the commission’s authority and standard medical and safety requirements.
That’s obviously important evidence.
But from a personal injury perspective, regulatory compliance and civil liability aren’t always identical questions.
An attorney analyzing a case like this would still want to know exactly what information was provided to the medical professionals, what the various parties knew before the event, what contractual responsibilities existed, and whether anyone had additional obligations concerning fighter safety.
Again, that doesn’t mean MVP did anything wrong.
It means those are the kinds of facts that lawyers investigate before deciding whether someone may have legal responsibility.
So Can You Sue When You Get Hurt Doing Something Dangerous?
Sometimes.
People get injured skiing, playing football, riding motorcycles, participating in martial arts, going to amusement parks and doing countless other activities that involve obvious risks.
Participating in something dangerous doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve surrendered every legal right you have.
The important question is often:
Were you injured because of a risk that was inherent in the activity—or did somebody unnecessarily increase the danger through negligent or wrongful conduct?
That’s where assumption-of-risk cases can get complicated very quickly.
Heather Hardy’s lawsuit is particularly interesting because boxing may be one of the purest examples imaginable of a sport in which participants knowingly accept the possibility of serious physical injury.
Whether Hardy can nevertheless establish liability based upon the specific circumstances surrounding her fight will ultimately depend upon the evidence, the applicable law and what the court determines.
We’ll be watching this one.
Injured in California? Accident Pros Can Help.
At Accident Pros LLP, we handle serious personal injury cases throughout California. If you’ve been injured and aren’t sure whether a waiver, assumption-of-risk defense or other issue affects your rights, you don’t have to figure it out yourself.
Zero legal word salad. Straight answers. Honest expectations.
Accident Pros LLP
Nice Lawyers. Serious Results.
1-855-776-7557
GotCrash.com
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The allegations discussed in the Heather Hardy litigation are disputed and have not been established as fact. The discussion of California law is general and is not intended to suggest that California law governs Hardy’s lawsuit.
