It’s been more than two years since Canadian tennis star Eugenie Bouchard slipped and fell in a physical therapy room after a mixed doubles match at the U.S. Open, suffering a concussion.
A determination about whether the U.S. Tennis Association was negligent in the incident may soon be over. A proposed pre-trial order suggests that jury selection will begin on Feb. 20, 2018, and that the trial will begin shortly thereafter.
In her complaint, Bouchard alleged that she fell because of a “slippery, foreign and dangerous substance” on the floor of the physiotherapy room of the women’s locker room.
Immediately after the incident, Bouchard withdrew from numerous tournaments. She attempted to return to the sport in a match at the China Open on October 5, 2015 against Andrea Petkovic. However, she was unable to finish the match, complaining of dizziness. While she has competed in other tournaments since that fateful day, she has failed to regain her form as one of the world’s best tennis players.
In her complaint, she is seeking an unspecified amount of damages for “economic loss, medical expenses and loss of enjoyment life” resulting from her head injury. Through her attorneys, she asserted causes of action for negligence against both the USTA and the USTA’s National Tennis Center, where the match was played. She alleged that they were collectively negligent in “failing to maintain, clean and repair the women’s locker room and physiotherapy room in a reasonably safe and suitable condition” and that they “had actual and/or constructive prior notice of the dangerous condition” which allegedly caused her to fall.
The USTA Claims Bouchard Was ‘Contributorily Negligent’
Among the arguments contained in its answer was the defendants’ assertion that “any and all risks of injury or dangers connected with the incident alleged in the complaint were at the time and place mentioned obvious, apparent and inherent risks and dangers, which … were known or should reasonably have been known by the plaintiff.”
Thus, Bouchard was “contributorily negligent” because, based on her “prior experience and knowledge,” she “knew, or should have known, the physiotherapy room was closed at the time she attempted to enter.”
