Heads Up! There's a Different Duty of Care Owed to Participants in College Sports
July 29, 2004
The Indiana Court of Appeals recently held that a participant in a sporting event cannot recover against any other participant without proof of intentional injury or malicious or reckless behavior. The court based its decision on its reasoning that sporting events have inherent dangers that those who choose to participate must accept. Importantly, the court applied this holding to a university whose coaches the court deemed to be participants in the sport they coached. This important decision was handed down in Geiersbach v. Frieje, 807 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
The facts of the case involve an indoor practice for Tri-State University’s baseball team. During the team’s practice on February 5, 2000, the team performed a drill in which the pitcher would throw a ball to the catcher, Robert Frieje, who was then to discard the ball. When the catcher caught the ball, the assistant coach, Josh Wagner, would hit another baseball in whatever direction he chose. At one point, the head coach, Dave Wagner, positioned runners at first and third bases. Then, the pitcher threw a ball to Frieje, who believed that he was to “throw through” to second base to cut off a potential steal by the runner at first. Simultaneously, Josh Wagner hit his ball down the third base line. The second baseman, William Geiersbach, moved to cover second base, anticipating a throw from the third baseman and was hit in the left eye by the ball thrown by Frieje. The hit severely and permanently injured Geiersbach’s eye.
Geiersbach sued Tri-State University, Dave Wagner, Josh Wagner and Frieje alleging negligence and breach of duty. The trial court granted the school and other defendants summary judgment and Geiersbach appealed.
On appeal, the court held that the defendants did not owe Geiersbach a duty of reasonable care. In coming to this conclusion, the court extended its previous holding in Mark v. Moser, 746 N.E.2d 410 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) to apply to all participants in a sporting event, including those at a college level. In Mark, the court held that a sports participant does not owe other participants the duty to refrain from conduct which is foreseeable and inherent in the sport, even though that conduct may be negligent and cause injury to another, unless the conduct is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport. The court then defined “participants” as “any person who is part of the sporting event or practice involved.” Further, the court said that “participant” includes players, coaches and players who are sitting on the bench during play. The court found that these participants should not be able to recover from any player, team, or sports stadium absent reckless or intentional conduct.
Importantly, Geiersbach’s claim against Tri-State was based on an agency theory of liability. Geiersbach did not allege any specific wrongdoing on the part of Tri-State, but simply alleged that Tri-State was responsible for the acts of its coaches, Dave and Josh Wagner. After determining that Dave and Josh Wagner were participants in the sport and, therefore, did not owe Geiersbach a duty of reasonable care, there was no liability for the court to impute to Tri-State.
In its analysis, the court refused to follow Geiersbach’s argument that this case is analogous to Beckett v. Clinton Prairie School Corp., 504 N.E.2d 552 (Ind. 1987). In Becket, the Indiana Supreme Court found that high school personnel had a duty to exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of the children under their authority. The Geiersbach court distinguished this case by noting that, unlike a high school, a college is not an insurer of the safety of its students.
Additionally, the court rejected Geiersbach’s argument that Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 989 F.2d 1360 (3d Cir. 1993) supported the imposition of a reasonable care standard in his case. The Kleinknecht case involved the parents of a deceased lacrosse player who alleged that their son’s college was negligent for failing to have medical staff at the lacrosse team’s practice resulting in the death of their son. The Third Circuit found that the college did owe the lacrosse player a duty of care. Importantly, the Geiersbach court used this case to illustrate its main point. The court stated that the lower standard of reckless or intentional conduct applies only to those risks that are inherent in a sport, but that the traditional standard for reasonable care applies to those dangers that are not inherent in the activity. It follows that, the failure to have medical staff at a practice is not an inherent danger in a sport and that the school may be found to have breached its duty of reasonable care. On the other hand, being hit with a baseball is an inherent danger of playing baseball, so a college cannot be held to a reasonable care standard.
Interestingly, the court mentioned Geiersbach’s analogy to Davidson v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 543 S.E.2d 920 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001) but did not state why that case was not analogous. In Davidson, a North Carolina appeals court held that a university owed a duty of care to a cheerleader who was injured during a practice. There, the court emphasized the mutually beneficial relationship between the cheerleader and the university. Furthermore, the court noted that the university exercised a great deal of control over the cheerleaders’ behavior and stated that this control may have led the cheerleaders to believe that they would receive a higher degree of protection from injury. After briefly summarizing the case, the court in Geiersbach did not distinguish the case in any way.
Geiersbach may signal a new standard of care owed by colleges and universities to their athletes. If so, colleges and universities need only refrain from causing intentional injury or acting recklessly or maliciously. However, in light of Davidson,
it is clear that the law is not settled on this issue and that states may
vary in their determination of the proper standard of care owed to college
athletes.
For more information, e-mail Kirsten Brown at
kirsten.brown@hklaw.com or call toll free, 1-888-688-8500.
Related Practices