What’s behind The Increase in
Amateur Baseball Litigation: Assessing A
Coach’s Liability For Injuries and Death
Al Figone, Ph.d Folsom, CA
Background
Coaches at all levels
have traditionally assumed a special role in the lives of athletes and success
of teams. In the past, winning coaches achieved results employing techniques that
could legally be considered “wanton’ or “grossly negligent” in any other
context. In 2015, because of a number of social and economic factors, the
explosion of baseball participation from the T-ball to the professionals is at
an all-time high.[1] Baseball’s
popularity appears to be an extension of the growth of all sports. On its face,
the behavior of coaches today is more legally scrutinized than ever and the
questions in a strictly legal sense are: where does society draw the line
between forging a winning program and negligent behavior or tort? Or, when does a coach’s behavior at any level
of sport constitute negligence and what standard should be applied? In this article, the coach’s liability for an
athlete’s injury or death while participating in any sport-related event will
be examined. Specifically, the theory of negligence applied in baseball and other
coaching contexts including other theories of liability and legal defenses
utilized by coaches when charged with negligence is addressed. Lastly, examples
taken from past court cases and hypothetical situations of unsafe coaching
practices and child abuse will be presented to merge theory with application.
Coaching Negligence: Case Studies and
Application
Although the
definition of negligence applied to sports participation varies from state to
state, it has been established that intercollegiate, high school, voluntary
organizations (i.e. youth leagues), and coaches are not responsible for the
health and safety of athletes.[2] Hence,
they are not held strictly liable for injuries sustained by players involved in
athletic participation. The lynchpin of the negligence definition is that
“athletes assume the inherent risks that are involved in the execution of sport
skills.”[3] Hence, a batter incurring a facial injury from a pitched
ball assumed or understood that the risk of injury while batting might include,
among many others, injuries to the face.[4] And,
the voluntary nature of participation in an activity allows the institutions,
organizations, and coaches to not be held responsible for injuries considered
part of a sport.
Although athletes
usually via an expressed consent form may assume risks inherent to baseball,
there are specific risks they are not expected to assume. Courts have
determined a coach’s duty is not to unnecessarily increase the risk of injury
inherent in skill execution and must teach, drill, and practically minimize the
risk of injury to players under his/her supervision. It is the violation of
this legal precept that has significantly increased the number of baseball-related
negligence lawsuits at all levels of the game. A Florida court decision has
provided a more definitive understanding involving how liability may be imposed
upon an institution, organization or coach. In Leahy v. School Board, the court enunciated as follows:
the duty owed athletes takes the form of a
giving adequate instruction in
the activity, supplying proper equipment,
making a reasonable selection
or
matching or matching of participants, providing non-negligent supervision of
the
particular contest (practice), and taking
proper post-injury procedures to guard
against aggravation of injuries.[5]
An example of how
the above ruling applies to the facial injury described previously will
illustrate the application of the court’s ruling. The late and knowledgeable
major league hitting coach Charlie Lau promoted “rolling” toward the catcher on
any pitch that was close to or might hit a batter. Lau’s rationale was that if the elements of
an efficient swing were taught [i.e. front side stays in] and practiced, then
rolling on a 90+ mph pitch could be executed and the probability of serious injuries
or death from pitches contacting the heart [i.e.Commotio Cordis] and head areas
[brain injuries] could be reduced.[6] Lau’s
study of hitters revealed the likelihood of a batter unschooled in hitting
first reaction to pitch thrown at him was an extension of the body before
moving to avoid contact with the ball. Hence, the valuable time lost in body
extension could lead to an unwanted result [time fastballs from the release to
the contact point vary depending on the MPH and level of competition]. Hence,
unless there was convincing evidence that a coaching staff had taught and
routinely practiced and corrected hitting fundamentals as recommended by
hitting experts [usually higher level coaches, video-tape analysis, etc.],
a case for negligence could be argued.[7]
Negligence and duty of care was further clarified in Kahn
v. East Side Union High School District when the court ruled that a coach will breach his
duty to a student-athlete if:
the coach intentionally injures the
student or engages in conduct that is reckless
in
the sense that it is ‘totally outside the range of the ordinary activity in
teaching or
coaching the sport.’[8]
Most importantly,
the court further stated that: “Coaches do not have a duty to eliminate all risk involved in sport, but rather
have a duty “not to increase the risk inherent to learning, practicing, or
performing the sport.”[9] Often,
institutions, organizations and coaches have been falsely led to believe they
are totally immunized from all liability because of rules established by a
national, regional, or state organization. Consider the National Federation of State High School Associations’ (NFSHSA) sliding
rule that states:
in high school baseball, a legal slide may
be feet or head first.[10]
From a legal
perspectives and according to long-time expert and advocate of child safety in
athletics Dr. Michael B. Minix, the national high school sliding rule infers: A player who slides head first won’t get
penalized, ejected, suspended or any other penalty that an institution,
organization, or coach have the ability to impose, during, and after the event
(i.e. game or practice).[11] Dr.
Minix’s analysis also provides a more comprehensive understanding of negligence
by stating the head first slide is legal does
not mean the slide:
1.
is an unreasonable risk of injury to a player and potentially criminal
in civil or criminal court;
2. the duty of care owed to an athlete has
been neglected; and
3. the damage or injury occurring from a
head first slide was
the result of a breach in the standard of
care.[12]
Dr. Minix’s
observations can also be understood by differentiating between administrative
laws (NFSHSA’s’ sliding rule) and
civil and criminal laws. The latter (Rules of Law) always supersede rules of
play authored by associations, sections, leagues, etc. (Administrative Laws). Regarding
the unreasonable standard risk of injury standard,
launching a head into a firmly planted leg by a catcher or an infielder in
turning a double play can lead to serious injury including full or partial of
body paralysis.[13]
Obviously, not teaching, practicing, and executing a bent-leg slide in that
situation presents an unreasonable risk of injury to which a player is not
expected to assume. However to
ameliorate this risk, it’s not enough only to point out the risks of launching
one’s head into a stationary object. Applying the duty of care precept implies a coaching staff has provided
sufficient instruction, practice, and corrective analysis in sliding heading
first (i.e. returning to a base to avoid a pick or sliding at a base or home to
avoid a tag). And, has devoted an equal amount of time to mastering the
bent-leg. [14]From a
practical, safety, and coaching perspective, the empirical evidence illustrates
that in comparing the two slides, the head first is likely to result in more
serious upper body injuries and not demonstrated to be faster in reaching a
base or home in comparison to a bent-leg.[15]
Hence, since the bent-leg appears to be safest and most efficient to master,
the trend in all levels of baseball shows an increasing use of this slide.[16] Standard
of care is associated with exposure of athletes to severe punishments (i.e.
verbal abuse), overuse injuries (excessive pitch counts, not correcting
improper techniques), and injury mismanagement (failure to provide and document
an updated Risk Management Program).[17]
Several amateur baseball
coaches in 2015 decry the entitlement
trend including the increasing number of parents interjecting themselves as
representing the best interests of their children. The primary issue according
to a number of amateur coaches is that parents can assume a role that is
disruptive and distractive to program functioning. In cases which have been adjudicated in court,
child abuse is the category in which these cases are documented and
increasingly involve emotional, verbal, and psychological abuse.[18] The
literature abounds with examples of coaches: leading their team to a nearby
pasture and pointing out “the players’ brains were similar to the grazing sheep’s,”
acting self-centered and only interested
in one’s coaching record, and the use of vulgar, derogatory, and intimidation
language. In one case (Newman v Oberstellar), the coach believed the following
dialogue was needed to motivate the football team:
ya’ ll f**king suck, all we’ve got on this
team is a bunch of a**holes…and
if
any of ya’ll want to run home and tell your parent’s (sic) I’ll stand up on top
of the Empire State Building and say,
you’re God damn right that’s what I said.[19]
A player filed a lawsuit
claiming in part that the words of the coach caused him “severe emotional
stress.” The coach maintained that in the “aggressive and competitive”
environment of high school football, it was necessary to use strong language to
motivate students. The coach filed for summary judgment [request for dismissal]
on the basis of immunity offered by the Texas Education Code (TEC) which
stated:
no professional employee of any school
district within the state shall be
personally liable for any act incident to or
within the scope of the duties of
his position of employment, and which act
involves exercise of judgment or
discretion on the part of the employees,
except in circumstances where
professional employees use excessive
force in the discipline of students
or negligence resulting in bodily injury
to students.[20]
Appellant Coach
Obstellar’s summary petition was denied on the basis that even if immunity
existed, it did not extend to certain
acts which can conceivably be so egregious to be considered outside the normal
execution of duties of an employee.[21]
Hence, a coach’s behavior such as utilizing derogatory language, verbal,
emotional, and psychological abuse (i.e. bringing a team to grazing sheep and
inferring its brain capacities were similar to the sheep’s) may render a coach
or coaching staff liable if a court (jury or judge) agrees that such actions
rise to a level that exceed normal
behavior.[22]
Conclusion
The increased
litigiousness in all aspect s of American society has not missed all levels of
sport. Clearly, coaches under the “unnecessarily
increasing the inherent risk” dicta can be held liable for player injuries
including death. Critics argue that
increased legal scrutiny can “chill” or not prompt coaches to seek maximal
performance and effort from athletes. However, baseball players’ increased
performance levels (freshman success in four-year college programs) can be
arguably attributed to the application of new knowledge by coaches, sports medicine professionals, nutritionists,
training experts, and informed parents. Updated knowledge and currency in the
application of technical executions, respect and reasonableness in
interactions’ with players, and thorough knowledge of the 14 duties for
athletic administrators and athletic coaches related to negligence litigation
are the best preventive strategy to avoid frivolous lawsuits.[23]
End Notes
Soccer.” The Wall Street Journal, 31 Jan 2014.
http://www.wsq.com/articles/SB10001424052702303519045793508
92629229918. (Acccesed 20 June
2015.).
[2] Matthew
J. Mitten, “The Coach and the Safety of Athletes: Ethical and Legal Issues.” Social Science Research
Network Electronic Paper Collection. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2088091. (Accessed
20 June 2015).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Thomas
R. Hurst & James N. Knight. Coaches Liabilities for Athletes’ Injuries and
Deaths, 13 Seton Hall J.
Sport L. 27
(2003). http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/337
(Accessed 20 June 2015).
[5] Leahy v. School Board, 450 So.2nd
883(Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984).
[6] Charlie Lau
with Alfred Glossbrenner, The Art Of
Hitting .300. New York: Penguin Books, 1992.
[7] Tom
Pate, “An Analysis of Court Cases Wherein College and High School Coaches in
the United States Were
Sued for
Negligence as a Result of a Player’s Injury.” Journal of Physical Education and Sports Management,
1:1, 2014,
June.
[8] Kahn v. East Side Union High School District,
75 P.3rd 30, (Cal. 2003).
[9] Ibid.
[10] See National
Federation of State High School
Associations’ 2012 Baseball Rules Book definition of a
legal Slide in Section Two, pages 17-18.
legal Slide in Section Two, pages 17-18.
[11] Dr.
Michael B. Minix, Sr. personal correspondence with Al Figone, 11 January 2015.
[12] Ibid
[13] Al
Figone, “Is Head First Sliding More
Dangerous?” Collegiate Baseball, 2012
April, “Sliding Techniques
Explored:
Figone Takes A Look At Most Popular Slides Utilized Over The Last Year.” Collegiate Baseball,
2012 May, “Bent-Leg
Safer For Base Stealers.” Collegiate
Baseball, 2012 October.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Al
Figone, “A Comparison of The Applied Frequency of Use of The Bent-Leg and
Head-First Slides at Three
Bases
and Home During The 2013 and 2014
Seasons at the High School, Junior College, College, and
Professional Levels.”
Unpublished Paper, 2014 October.
15 Al Figone, See More and Talk Less: Applying The Mental
Aspects of Basseball: A Handbook for Players,
Coaches and Parents. Charleston, SC:
Createspace, 2012
Articles.” Hackney Publications, 2009 July-August.
http://www.hackneypublications.com/lihsa/issues/2009
/LIHSA-2009-july-august.php#a2. (Accessed 20 June
2015.
17Ibid.
18 Newman v Oberstellar. 915 S. W. 2d 198
(Corpus Christi, Texas, Texas Ct. of App. 13th Dis.
1996).
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Janis K. Doleschal,” Managing Risk in
Interscholastic Athletic Programs: 14 Legal Duties.” 17 Marq. Sports
L. Rev. 295
(2006).
(http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol17/iss1/11.
Accessed 20 June 2015.
The author would like to
thank former Kentucky All-American high school and University of
Kentucky football player
Dr. Michael B, Minix for his invaluable assistance in crafting this
article.
Word Count: 2295
No comments:
Post a Comment