A Michigan state appeals court has reversed a trial court, which absolved a youth football league from any legal responsibility for an injury suffered by a cheerleader. In sum, the appeals court found that the judge jumped the gun when it failed to consider whether the defendant could have prevented the injury by exercising “ordinary care.”
The injury occurred when Jessica Sherry tried to perform a stunt, called a full extension cradle, during “Spirit Day,” a camp for cheerleaders of the East Suburban Football League (ESFL). At the time, the plaintiff cheered on the Junior Varsity Team for the Macomb Mustangs, a team organized through the Macomb Youth Football Club (MYFC).
The MYFC is a nonprofit organization and franchise member of the ESFL. Individual defendant Stephanie Vallie served as cheer coordinator for the Macomb Mustangs, and Individual defendant Julie Lange served as coach for the Junior Varsity Cheerleading Team.
In her lawsuit, Sherry claimed that the defendants exhibited negligence and gross negligence by failing to properly train and supervise the cheerleaders.
The defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). The court agreed, finding that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate the requisite “reckless misconduct.”
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in applying the reckless misconduct standard of care adopted in Ritchie-Gamester v. City of Berkley, 461 Mich 73; 597 N.W.2d 517. According to the plaintiff, “ordinary negligence principles apply, and genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether defendants acted negligently in the supervision of plaintiff.”
The court agreed. “(T)he reckless misconduct standard applies in cases where a coach is acting as a co-participant, the ordinary negligence standard remains applicable in typical failure to supervise cases.”
It continued: “Here, there remain genuine issues of material fact regarding whether defendants exercised ordinary care under the circumstances. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it cannot be said as a matter of law that defendants provided proper supervision of the stunting station or that plaintiff’s injuries were unforeseeable. Although a coach was supposed to be positioned at the stunting station, no coach was present when plaintiff incurred her injury. Without proper supervision, the high school girls in plaintiff’s group became inattentive and horsed around. Although a coach was notified, she simply threatened the high school girls with running laps if they [*9] dropped plaintiff. Despite this threat, the high school girls continued horsing around and were not counting properly. The girls then attempted to execute an advanced cheerleading stunt with plaintiff, who had never before performed the maneuver. On the whole, we find that reasonable minds could differ regarding whether an individual exercising ordinary care would foresee that a young girl without proper supervision or training would become injured in an attempt to execute an advanced cheerleading stunt with a group of high school girls on a grass football field.
“Defendants argue that, applying any standard of care, plaintiff cannot establish the requisite element of causation. We disagree. Reasonable minds could differ regarding whether it is foreseeable that unsupervised, high school girls assisting in the execution of difficult cheerleading stunts will become inattentive to the point of creating a risk of harm. Exercising due care, perhaps defendants would have maintained supervision at the stunting station, removed the girls who were incapable of focusing, or introduced only those stunts that were appropriate given the cheerleaders’ ages and skill levels. Thus, we are unable to conclude as a matter of law that defendants did not cause plaintiff’s damages. At the very least, questions of fact remain, and summary disposition in defendants’ favor was improper.”
Renee Sherry v. East Suburban Football League et al.; Ct.App.Mich.; No. 295792, 2011 Mich. App. LEXIS 512; 3/17/11
