The Colorado Court of Appeals heard arguments in Mid-October on Alex Terranova v. Adams 12 Five Star School District.
Terranova was playing varsity baseball at his high school in Broomfield, Colo. in 2011 when he claims he suffered traumatic brain injuries after he was hit in the head by a baseball on two separate occasions within the same month.
The first incident alleged occurred during a baseball tryout March 3, 2011 when Terranova was hit in the helmet by a student-pitched baseball while at the plate. The plaintiff allegedly appeared “dazed,” but continued playing that day and in the coming weeks.
Four weeks later, during a March 30, 2011 practice, Terranova and his teammates practiced pick-offs. During the drill, the plaintiff’s role was to throw the ball from the pitcher’s mound to second base, simulating picking off base-runners. During the drill, an errant, student-thrown baseball hit Terranova’s head. Allegedly, he was immediately dazed and confused, but was not removed from play and was allowed to drive home after practice.
He and his family ultimately sued the school district, the baseball coach and several other individuals, claiming while Terranova displayed symptoms of a concussion on both occasions, the coach ignored recent training on head injuries and allowed Terranova to continue practicing.
The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss several of the Terranovas’ claims for relief, finding that because there was no “willful and wanton” conduct on behalf of the defendants, governmental immunity shielded the defendants from any liability.
The Terranovas appealed, asking the Court of Appeals to review the trial court’s conclusion on governmental immunity as well as the trial court’s decision to order the Terranovas to pay the defendants’ attorney fees.
One of the plaintiff’s arguments in its appellate brief was that the March 30 injury resulted from the baseball mound’s dangerous condition, which would undermine the defendants’ governmental immunity argument.
The defendants countered with the following:
“There was nothing dangerous, or even substandard, about the baseball mound’s condition. The Terranovas contend that the use of the mound as the focus for the pick-off drill rendered it an actionable dangerous condition. A dangerous condition cannot arise solely from a facility’s use, as the district court correctly recognized. Further, even if one presumes that the unsafe use of the mound created a dangerous condition, the dangerous condition was not proximately caused by negligent maintenance or construction – the Terranovas do not even attempt to argue otherwise in their opening brief. They do not, therefore, allege a viable public facility exception and the district court properly determined that the district, too, is immune from the Terranovas’ suit.”
