A Connecticut state court has granted a soccer association and an amateur soccer league’s motion for summary judgment in a case in which they were sued by a plaintiff participant in an adult soccer game after the plaintiff suffered an injury.
In so ruling, the court found that the city had responsibility for the field and its upkeep, not the soccer association and an amateur soccer league, and that the defendants had no special relationship with the game’s referee, who the plaintiff claimed failed to properly call the game.
The incident in question occurred on June 5, 2004. The plaintiff, Peter Zajaczkowski, was playing in an adult soccer game at West Beach Field in Stamford, Conn., as a member of the Polonia Stamford soccer team. The plaintiff sustained personal injuries, while in the act of scoring a goal, when he collided with the goal keeper from the opposing team.
The plaintiff subsequently sued for negligence, naming the Connecticut State Soccer Association Inc. (CSSA) and the Amateur Soccer League of Connecticut (ASLC) as defendants. He asserted the following allegations:
• They allowed the game to be played on a field which had a substandard playing surface, which was not safe for various stated reasons;
• They failed to repair the field or remedy the conditions;
• They failed to inspect the field before allowing the game to be played;
• They failed to provide a safe playing field;
• They failed to post signs or notices to warn the plaintiff of unsafe field conditions;
• They failed to properly officiate the game to eliminate violent or improper behavior of players that was likely to cause injury to other players, including the plaintiff;
• They failed to provide properly trained officials;
• They allowed players to participate, who they knew or should have known were likely to cause injury to others;
• They failed to properly supervise officials that they provided to referee the game;
• They failed to properly train such officials;
• They permitted the game to continue, knowing it wasn’t being properly officiated to prevent violent behavior and to prevent violations of the rules;
• They failed to properly train players as to the rules of the game and proper techniques for playing the game before allowing them to participate in the games;
• They failed to appropriately discipline players for violent [*3] play and/or violations of the rules;
• They failed to enforce the rules of the game of soccer;
• They failed to warn the plaintiff that they permitted and/or allowed violent behavior and rules violations during the games that were likely to cause injury;
• They misrepresented to the plaintiff that the game would be conducted in accordance with the rules, and violent behavior would not be tolerated; and
• They allowed the game to be played without the number of officials required to properly enforce the rules by Laws 5 and 6 of the Laws of the Game, so as to eliminate violent and improper behavior.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, countering that:
• They cannot be liable because they did not own or maintain the playing field where the soccer match was held;
• Any alleged negligence by the defendants was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries;
• There is no evidence that the referee was negligent, and if he was, neither defendant can be held vicariously liable, as the referee was an independent contractor, rather than an employee, agent or servant of the defendants; and
• The defendants had no duty to train the referee because the referee was an independent contractor.
The court noted at the outset in its analysis that “issues of negligence are ordinarily not susceptible of summary judgment adjudication but should be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner.” Fogarty v. Rashaw, 193 Conn. 442, 446, 476 A.2d 582 (1984).
However, the court was less inclined to follow that course in the instant case.
“Liability for injuries occurring on real property is grounded in possession and control of the property,” wrote the court. “There is no question that the playing field in this matter was owned by the City of Stamford, which is not a defendant in this case.”
It continued, “Stamford owned, possessed and controlled the playing field. The responsibility to repair and maintain the field belonged to the City of Stamford.”
The court also suggested that the plaintiff was responsible “as to whether or not to participate … . The plaintiff in his deposition testimony stated that on the date in question, he decided to participate in the soccer match despite his private thoughts that the field was not in good condition. However, he never complained to anyone about his opinion of the field’s condition. In his response to discovery inquiries from the defendants, the plaintiff stated that he never observed any defect in the field. He never complained to anyone about the physical nature of the match or the conduct of other players and did not request that the match be halted. He stated that he could have taken himself out of the match, but soccer players don’t do that.”
Further, the court noted that its Supreme Court has recognized that “the very nature of athletic competition makes it reasonably foreseeable that competitors may be injured during the contest. In athletic competitions, the object obviously is to win. In games, particularly those played by teams and involving some degree of physical contact, it is reasonable to assume that the competitive spirit of the participants will result in some rules violations and injuries. Some injuries may result from such violations, but such violations are nonetheless an accepted part of any competition.” Jaworski v. Kiernan, 241 Conn. 399, 407-08, 696 A.2d 332 (1997).
“Soccer, while not as violent of a sport as football, is nevertheless replete with occasions when the participants make contact with one another during the normal course of the game. When two soccer players vie for control of the ball, the lower limbs are especially vulnerable to injury. If a player seeks to challenge another player who has possession of the ball or seeks to prevent another player from gaining possession of the ball, the resulting contact could reasonably be foreseen to result in injury to either player.” Id., 406-07.
Addressing another key legal issue, the court wrote that “the defendants have satisfied their burden of demonstrating the non-existence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the absence of an agency relationship between either defendant and the referee for purposes of vicarious liability.”
Peter Zajaczkowski v. Connecticut State Soccer Association, Inc. et al.; Super. Ct. Conn.; CV065003515, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 435; 2/23/10
