By Carla Varriale, of Havkins, Rosenfeld, Ritzert & Varriale
New Jersey’s appeals court has ruled that an eleven-year-old boy cannot be held responsible for breaking an opposing player’s arm during a collision at a Burlington County recreational lacrosse game. C.J.R. v. G.A., (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division Docket No. A-2771-13T3) is a case of first impression and New Jersey’s first recorded opinion analyzing the potential liability of a minor who injures another minor in a youth sports activity.
Seeking to recover damages for alleged personal injuries, the injured player and his father sued the opposing player (also eleven years old) and his father. The suit alleged that the young player who caused the fracture should be held liable under “tort liability principles” that have been established by the New Jersey Supreme Court in adult sport-related contexts and that his father should also be held liable based on a theory of negligent parental supervision. Both claims failed.
The appellate court took judicial notice that children, especially young children, often need years of training, coaching and experience to learn and adhere to the rules of a competitive sport. The court reached the conclusion by applying a double-layered analysis. The court examined whether the opposing player’s injurious conduct would be actionable if committed by an adult based on sufficient proof of his recklessness or intent and whether it would be reasonable in the particular youth sports setting to expect a minor of the same age and characteristics of the defendant to refrain from the injurious contact. The court held these elements were lacking and that summary judgment was appropriately granted.
The appellate court also rationalized that it is unfair to treat children like adults in the youth sports context and that injuries are often a result of inexperience and “…youthful exuberance, lack of self-discipline, clumsiness…or some combination of those traits” when young athletes participate in “rough-and-tumble” sports, such as lacrosse. The court further observed that children have “a propensity to make physical and mental errors.” In addition, the court noted that it was concerned about lawsuits cropping up, as often as referees called a foul if liability was affixed in circumstances such as those involved in this case.
The court, however, was cognizant of the heightened public attention focused on concussions and similar injuries to young athletes and opined that there were legitimate safety concerns raised in this lawsuit. The court took care to explain that it did not overlook the efforts of parents, coaches, referees and equipment manufacturers who are striving to make youth sports safer in rendering this decision. To the contrary, the court expressly stated it was not endorsing a laissez-faire attitude or was otherwise oblivious to the risks of such injuries. Rather, the court focused on the fact that this was an “unfortunate sports-related injury” committed by a minor who lacked the skill, judgment or experience to know better.
