Risk Management in Interscholastic Athletics - CASES

Risk Management in Interscholastic Athletics - CASES

1. Sciotto v. Marple Newtown School District, U.S. District Court Pennsylvania 1999

The plaintiff, a 16-year-old, 110-pound high school sophomore wrestler at Marple Newtown High School, suffered a catastrophic injury during wrestling practice. The school’s wrestling coach had invited an alumnus of Marple Newtown’s wrestling program to attend practice. The alumnus was 22-years-old and was a D-I wrestler at Penn State who weighted approximately 150 pounds. The coach had the alumnus “live wrestle” the sophomore wrestler in front of the rest of the team. As the two wrestled, the alumnus put the plaintiff in a wrestling hold referred to as a “half-nelson.” As the alumnus was “running the half”, a popping sound was heard and the plaintiff collapsed on the mat. The move had broken the neck of the plaintiff, resulting in a spinal cord injury that rendered the plaintiff a permanent quadriplegic. Eventually the plaintiff and his parents filed a lawsuit against the school, its athletic director, and the wrestling coach alleging assault and battery, negligence, and a deprivation of the injured wrestler’s substantive due process rights (the right to be treated fairly and equitably by government entities and government employees such as public school athletic personnel).

2. Reaume v. Jefferson Middle School & Nadeau, Michigan Court of Appeals 2006

The plaintiff was a middle school wrestler at Jefferson Middle School and was standing inside an open gym door, his back to the door, waiting for wrestling practice to begin. The wrestling team’s assistant coach, Nadeau, entered the open door, snuck up on the plaintiff, put the plaintiff in a wrestling hold from behind, and slammed the plaintiff to the ground. The assistant coach then proceeded to perform several wrestling moves on the plaintiff to, the final of which fractured the plaintiff’s elbow. The injury required surgery to repair the elbow and after medical expenses for the surgery and rehab began to mount; the plaintiff and his parents filed a lawsuit against the school district and the assistant coach as an individual.

3. Yatsko v. Berezwick, U.S. District Court Pennsylvania 2007

The plaintiff was a member of the Tamaqua Area High School basketball team. During a game, as she jumped to get a rebound, her head collided with the head of an opposing team’s player. She played the rest of the game and afterwards began to suffer lightheadedness, vision problems, and a headache. She informed her coaches about the symptoms but they did not refer her to a trainer because she was a star player and another game was scheduled for two days after and the coaches, allegedly, feared that the trainer would argue that the plaintiff should not play in that next game. During the second game, the plaintiff collapsed and was transported to a hospital where she was diagnosed with a severe concussion. As a result of treatment being delayed, she suffered serious brain injuries, missed several months of the school year, and incurred extensive medical expenses. The plaintiff sued the school district and coach.

4. Baretto v. City of New York, 1997

Baretto was an 18-year-old varsity volleyball player who report to practice with other members of his high school team. Baretto’s coach instructed the team to set up the poles and nets for practice while he completed some school business outside the gymnasium. In addition, testimony of other players indicated that the coach told the players “not to horse around”. While the net was being hoisted, Baretto attempted to jump over the net while it was at waist height. Baretto was warned by his teammates not to jump that caused him to pause temporarily. A few minutes later, Baretto attempted to jump over the net but caught his foot, causing him to fall to the floor and strike his head and neck. The trauma of the fall caused permanent paralysis form the chest down.

5. Molina v. Christensen & Wichita State University, 2002

In the spring of 1999, as he was preparing to lead off for the University of Evansville in a baseball game against Wichita State University, Anthony Molina was warming up for his at-bat in a spot located a distance of about 25-feet away from home-plate when a warm-up thrown by WSU pitcher Ben Christensen hit him in the face. Molina suffered severe injuries, including a skull fracture and serious eye injuries that ended his baseball career. Allegedly, Christensen intentionally hit Molina with the pitch because he believed that Molina was “timing” his pitches. Also, allegedly, WSU pitchers had been instructed by their coaches to throw at on-deck batters who appeared to be timing pitches.

6. Stanley v. Board of Education, Illinois, 1973

A player suffered severe head injuries when struck in the head by a bat that slipped out of another player’s hands. The bat had a worn-down handle, was not taped, and was virtually impossible to grip. The school had no plan of inspection and maintenance for the athletics equipment worn or used by its athletes.

7. Mora v. Board of Education, 1992

While moving various gymnastics apparatus pieces, Mora was struck by a balance beam that had been stored on end in the corner of a gymnasium. The trauma of the beam striking the plaintiff’s head caused serious injury for which she brought suit.

8. Scott v. Savers Property & Casualty Insurance Company, 2002

This “educational malpractice” case addressed the issues as to whether a school bears liability in contract or in tort if it engages in conduct that results in the loss of college scholarship for a student-athlete. Specifically, the case considers the question as to whether a school can be sued for breach of contract or negligence if it erroneously communicates information regarding the qualifying criteria for a college athletics scholarship. The lawsuit was initiated after a high school guidance counselor allegedly misinformed a high school hockey player that a particular high school communications course would satisfy the NCAA’s core course requirements for incoming freshmen. When his college hockey scholarship offer was rescinded, the student-athlete sued both the high school and its insurer arguing that the high school breached its contract to provide him with effective guidance counseling and that the high school was negligent in providing him with erroneous guidance counseling.

9. Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 2001

Do Schools and athletics personnel have a duty to provide accurate information to students and student-athletes regarding academic and athletics issues? Does a student or student-athlete who suffers harm or damages because of incorrect information supplied by school personnel have a cause of action?

A student-athlete received incorrect information regarding NCAA initial eligibility requirements (core course issues) forms a school guidance counselor and when the NCAA Clearinghouse declared the student-athlete to be a “non-qualifier”, his college basketball scholarship offer was revoked. The student sued the school and guidance counselor for both educational malpractice and negligent misrepresentation.

10. Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 1993

Kleinknecht was a scholarship lacrosse player at Gettysburg College. The athlete died after he suffered cardiac arrest during an off-season, unsupervised practice session. The sessions were not mandatory, but they were strongly encouraged by the lacrosse coach and the school’s athletic administration was fully aware that the practices were taking place. When the player collapsed during the practice, although he was demonstrating all of the symptoms of a heart attack, the other players were uncertain as to the severity of what was happening – whether the player was merely exhausted or whether something more serious had occurred – and by the time they ascertained that he needed medical assistance, it was too late.

11. Clement v. Griffin, Louisiana, 1984

Several members of a college baseball team were injured in an automobile accident while being transported in a van owned by the school. At the time of the accident, a student-athlete who was a member of the team was driving the van. The student did not have the proper driver’s license under the circumstances. State law required a chauffeur’s license. In addition, the tires on the van were worn and low on pressure.

12. Thurmond v. Prince William Professional Baseball Club, Virginia, 2003

In a case dealing with the doctrine of assumption of risk and the duty to provide a safe environment not just for participants but also for 3rd parties such as spectators, officials, and athletics facility employees, the Virginia Supreme Court relied on a long line of case precedents across the country in reaffirming the applicable legal standards. The dispute arose when the plaintiff was hit in the face and severely injured by a foul ball while attending a minor league baseball game of the Prince William County Cardinals, a single-A affiliate of the St. Louis Cardinals.

13. Sharon v. City of Newton, Mass., 2002

This case tests the validity of a “waiver of liability” form signed by a student-athlete. The injured party was a seventeen-year-old high school cheerleader who, as a condition precedent to joining the cheerleading squad, signed a waiver of liability that was included in the paperwork comprising the school’s written sports participation agreement. Her parents also signed the waiver (the school required the signature of both minor and parent(s) on all sports participation agreement paperwork). During the cheerleading season, she was injured when she fell onto a gymnasium floor while rehearsing a stunt during a cheerleading practice. It was not until three years later just before the two-year tort law statute of limitations (which does not begin to run until a minor reaches the age of majority upon turning eighteen) was due to expire, that she filed a personal injury lawsuit. She argued that the waiver of liability was unenforceable because neither she or her father fully understood the nature of the document that they were signing and that such waivers should be unenforceable as a matter of public policy.

14. Tri-Central High School v. Mason, Indiana, 2001

After suffering a broken leg during a practice, a high school football player sued the school to recover his medical expenses which amounted to a total of $22,000. Before bringing suit, the player had filed a claim with the school’s catastrophic insurance provider but the claim had been rejected because the policy carried a $25,000 deductible per claimant. Before the season had begun, all players had been required to sign a sports participation agreement that included an exculpatory clause releasing the school from liability for sports injuries. The parents of all players under the age of eighteen had been required to separately sign the exculpatory clause. The exculpatory clause also included a brief statement that the school carried catastrophic injury insurance coverage, but did not include any information regarding the $25,000 deductible. The injured player was over eighteen and therefore his parents had not been required to sign the document. The basis of the injury player’s claim against the school was that it had fraudulently coerced him into signing the sports participation agreement by misrepresenting the nature of the catastrophic insurance coverage policy. In effect, he argued that the waiver should not be enforced because its applicability was conditioned on the school providing complete catastrophic coverage (not merely coverage above the $25,000 deductible).

15. Vitzhum v. Hicksville Public Schools, 2001

An eighth-grader was injured during a physical education class softball game while sliding into third base. Class members had been repeatedly instructed not to slide during games held in class. The injured participant had attend the school for three years and during sixth and seventh grades had also been given the repeated warning not to slide during games held in class. The student and her parents brought suit against the physical education teacher and the district arguing that the field was inadequately maintained and constituted an unsafe playing environment. Furthermore, they argued that, although warnings had been given to the students that they were not to slide, those warnings were inadequate to ensure that the students understood the risks associated with sliding.

1