Archive for the ‘Youth Sports’ Category

Free of Charge – City Immune Under Statute From Premises Liability Claim by Injured Youth Football Spectator (ID)

November 10, 2015

Hayes v, City of Plummer (Idaho)

The plaintiff was a spectator attending a youth tackle football game at a park owned by the defendant City of Plummer.  He was seriously injured after stumbling on uneven ground hidden by grass, and he filed a premises liability claim against the defendant for his injuries.  The defendant then filed a motion for summary judgment based on Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute.  The trial court granted the City’s motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal. the Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the trial court’s decision.  Under the Idaho Recreational Use Statute, “[a] ‘landowner’ who provides property for public recreational use is afforded a limitation of liability and ‘owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes.'”  This liability limitation applies when the property is offered “without charge.”  The plaintiff asserted that the school district’s payment of utilities and other expenses related to the park for the benefit of the defendant should be considered a “charge” such that the liability immunity did not apply.  However, the Court disagreed, explaining:

“The intent and purpose of Idaho’s Recreational Use Statute is to provide recreational access at no cost to the general public. I.C. § 36–1604(a) . In this case, the City and the School District have done that by allocating resources in order to provide and maintain the Park for all to enjoy. Because the City did not charge or receive compensation from [plaintiff] or the public for their use and enjoyment of the land, Idaho Code section 36–1604  provides a limitation on liability for [plaintiff’s] injuries. The district court properly granted summary judgment.”

Advertisements

No Relief – Issue of Town’s Liability Regarding Condition of High School Baseball Field for the Jury (MA)

October 19, 2015

Murray v. Town of Hudson (Massachusetts)

A relief pitcher for a high school baseball team injured his knee while warming up in the visiting team bullpen.  He filed a lawsuit against the town that maintained the park at which the baseball field was located, alleging that the injury was caused by the town’s negligence and its wanton and reckless conduct in allowing the visiting team to use a dangerous bullpen.  The town filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the negligence claim was barred by the Massachusetts recreational use statute, and that the evidence did not support a finding of wanton or reckless conduct.  The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, and the pitcher appealed.

(more…)

(Un)Safe! – High School Softball Playing Injured During Sliding Drill; Triable Issues Regarding Increased Risks (NY)

August 31, 2015

Brown v. Roosevelt Union Free School District (New York)

A high school senior softball player was injured while participating in an infield sliding drill during softball practice on an elementary school field.  The team was practicing on the elementary school field because the high school field was being renovated.  The injured player’s mother filed a lawsuit on her behalf alleging that the coach increased the inherent risks of the softball by having her perform an infield sliding drill on a grass field.  The defendant school filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the claim was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk.  Defendant asserted that under the law, the risks of an activity include risks associated with the construction of the playing surface and any open and obvious condition on it.  The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, and the defendant appealed.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court decision.  The Court concluded that “the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the infant’s coach, by having her perform an infield sliding drill on the subject grass field, did not unreasonably increase the inherent risks of the activity.”  In that the defendant failed to meet its burden, the Court said it did not need to determine the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s opposition papers.

Worst Seat in the House – Triable Issue as to Whether Park Had Notice of Dangerous Bleachers (AL)

August 18, 2015

Shirley v. Tuscaloosa County Park and Recreation Authority (Alabama)

Plaintiff was sitting on bleachers at Munny Sokol Park in Alabama watching a youth football game.  Certain welds on the bleachers broke, causing plaintiff to fall and suffer personal injury.  Plaintiff filed a complaint against the parks and recreation authority that owned the property, alleging negligence and wantonness.  Plaintiff later amended her complaint to assert a claim under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine against several fictitiously named defendants.  The property owner filed a motion for summary judgment arguing it was entitled to immunity under Alabama’s recreational use statute.  The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court improperly entered summary judgment because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the park was being used for commercial purposes and whether the property owner had “actual knowledge or an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm” (both exceptions to the statutory immunity).

The Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama noted that plaintiff presented no evidence indicating that the use of the park was commercial in nature.  However, the Court found that the plaintiff did present evidence that the property owner had actual knowledge regarding the unreasonably dangerous condition of the bleachers and that it failed to guard or warn against the consequences.  The evidence established that an employee of the property owner arrived at the scene of the incident and commented, “I told them earlier to put a cone or a sign on this bleacher until we could get somebody out here to repair it.”  Another witness also confirmed that the the condition of the bleachers was known and should have been “coned off.”  The property owner disputed the facts, but the Court noted that it was required to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant.  Therefore, the Court reversed the decision and remanded the trial for further proceedings.

Hard Lesson – Defendant Riding School Not Liable for Child Bucked from Horse (NY)

July 8, 2015

Quintanilla v. Thomas School of Horsemanship, Inc. (New York)

A minor child was thrown from a horse while taking an intermediate horse riding lesson, and her mother filed a lawsuit against the horse riding facility.  The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, contending that the claim was barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk.  The trial court denied the motion, but the decision was reversed the the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court.

Prior to the child’s participation in the riding lesson, her parents signed a “Camp and Riding Instruction Agreement and Liability Release,” which warned that the facility’s horses could react if they were frightened or provoked.  During the child’s lesson, several horses came in close proximity to one another, and one of the horses kicked a wooden fence or gate, causing the child’s horse to rear up and throw the child off.  The Court explained that “[t]he risks of falling from a horse or a horse acting in an unintended manner are risks inherent in the sport of horseback riding.”  As such, the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

And the Runner is Out – Claim By Spectator at a Little League Game Barred by Recreational Use Statute (RI)

May 11, 2015

Carlson v. Town of South Kingston (Rhode Island)

The plaintiff was attending her son’s little league game being played at a park and field owned and maintained by the defendant town.  As she was walking from a batting cage area over to a concession stand to meet her son, she stepped in a “divot” and broke her leg.  Testimony established that the “divot” was created by kids waiting to get into the batting cages when they would dig their cleats into the ground.  Plaintiff filed an action against the town, alleging the town negligently maintained the premises.  The town moved for summary judgment based on Rhode Island’s Recreational Use Statute (“RUS”).  Plaintiff objected to the motion citing two exceptions to the RUS and alleging: (1) the town had “willfully or maliciously failed to guard or warn against a dangerous condition on the land,” and (2) the town had charged plaintiff for her access to the park.  The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

(more…)

Taking One for the Team – Minor Cheerleader Assumed the Risk of Practicing with an Injured Teammate (NY)

April 23, 2015

Photo by Adam Burke. No changes made.

Kurt T. Jurgensen, as Parent and Natural Guardian of Jayna R. Jurgensen (New York)

A minor student was injured while working with her teammates on a choreographed stunt that involved two cheerleaders (the “bases”) throwing the student into the air and then catching her.  The stunt was completed successfully on the first attempt on the day of the incident, but on the second attempt, the student felt plaintiff in her knee when her teammates threw her up in the air.  The student suffered a ligament injury to her knee, and she alleged that the injury occurred because one of her teammates was practicing that day with a sprained ankle, which caused her to hold the student’s foot for too long before throwing her in the air.  The student’s father filed a lawsuit on the student’s behalf, alleging that the school district was negligent in allowing the injured teammate to participate in the practice.  The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending that the action was barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk.  The Supreme Court of New York denied the motion, and the defendant appealed.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reversed the decision.  The Court concluded that the plaintiff’s daughter knew that her teammate was injured, and that the teammate had not been cleared to practice.  Additionally, the plaintiff’s daughter had performed the stunt with the same teammate earlier on the day in question, and the daughter said she had noticed the based was “a little more shaky” than usual.  Despite this knowledge, the daughter testified that she “didn’t think it was that big of a deal.”  The Court asserted that the daughter practicing with a teammate knowing the teammate was injured was analogous to a cheerleader practicing without a mat or an athlete playing on a field that is in less than perfect condition.  Therefore, the Court held that the action was barred by the doctrine of assumption of risk.

(Photo by Adam Burke.  No changes made.)

Untrained Warrior – High Schooler Injured in Self-Defense Course Gets Her Day in Court (NY)

April 19, 2015

Pierre v. Ramapo Central School District (New York)

A minor high school student was injured while competing as a participant in her school’s self-defense tournament, a voluntary competition open to female students who were enrolled in an elective self-defense class taught by a physical education teacher.  The student filed an action against the school district claiming that the class was actually a mixed martial arts class and alleging that the district was negligent in allowing the class to be instructed by (and the tournament to be refereed by) a person with little martial arts training.

The defendant school district filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk barred the action and that any negligent supervision on its behalf was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.  The Supreme Court initially denied the motion, and the defendant appealed.

(more…)

Coach of Youth Equestrian Rider Escapes Liability in Wrongful Death Case (CA)

March 11, 2015

Eriksson v. Nunnink (California)

In 2006, a 17-year old girl was killed while riding a horse in competition in California.  The parents of the decedent sued for wrongful death and negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging that the horse was “unfit to ride because of prior falls and lack of practice.”  After the plaintiffs presented evidence at trial, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for entry of judgment, which the plaintiffs appealed.  The Court of Appeal held that the minor waiver and release agreement signed by the decedent and her mother prior to decedent’s participation in the competition was enforceable as a liability defense to the wrongful death claim.  Although a minor can “disaffirm” a written contract, the terms of the waiver and release agreement became “irrevocable and binding” under California caselaw when the agreement was signed by the minor’s parent. (more…)

Go Team!

November 15, 2012

Kristina D. v. Nesaquake Middle School (New York)
(A cheerleader was injured when she fell from a shoulder stand during practice; she sued the district, coach and others for her personal injuries; the trial court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on assumption of the risk, but the decision was reversed on appeal.)

The minor plaintiff was an experienced middle school cheerleader who was injured performing a “shoulder stand” during practice, a stunt she had performed many times in the past.  She filed a claim alleging that the school district and the coach acted negligently by, among other things, “failing to supervise the cheerleaders properly in performing the stunt.”  The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the claims were barred by assumption of the risk.  The motion was denied, and the defendants appealed.

(more…)