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.
1
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.
2
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.
3
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.
4