A Tennessee state appeals court has affirmed the ruling of the Claims Commission, siding with East Tennessee State University in a case where it was sued for negligence by a player who suffered an injury in football practice.
Specifically, the appeals court found for the university as to whether the coaches were negligent in their instruction on how to properly tackle a ball carrier as well as on the plaintiff’s claim that the coaches should not have allowed practice to be held in adverse weather conditions.
The incident occurred on April 8, 2000 during an ETSU scrimmage. “(T)here was a steady, cold, early spring rain that day, which caused the field to be in bad condition, especially as it related to mud.” The injury occurred when the plaintiff (Garrett Lynn Goforth) was in an “off tackle fullback veer and (the plaintiff) did what he was supposed to do, which was fill the hole in the offensive line … . As he made the tackle, his feet slipped out from under him and his helmet contacted the fullback in the thigh. As a result, (he) was seriously injured.”
Goforth and his parents sued the university for injuries that the son sustained while practicing football, charging the coaches were “negligent in allowing practice to continue under dangerous conditions.” They also alleged that the coaches were negligent in their training and direction of the team,” specifically regarding tackling.
The defendant answered, denying any negligence, and asserted that the son assumed the risk of playing football.
Following a trial, the commissioner found in favor of the defendant on all claims.
In reviewing the claim, the commissioner found “that plaintiffs relied on Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(1)(C), which refers to dangerous conditions on state controlled real property. The Commissioner ruled that in viewing the tape, he could not conclude that the condition of the field was unreasonably dangerous, because ‘football fields get muddy.’ As to the charge that the coaching staff was negligent in allowing the practice to go on, he held that the University had a duty to exercise care of their student-athletes and keep them free from harm, but the University did not breach that duty in this case, and that the coaches had taught proper tackling techniques.”
Among the issues raised on appeal:
1. Whether the Commissioner erred in failing to find that a preponderance of the evidence established that the coaching staff was negligent in allowing practice to continue in the conditions which existed on the date in question?
2. Whether the Commissioner erred in failing to find that a preponderance of the evidence established that the coaching staff was negligent in its teaching of tackling techniques, which led to Goforth’s injuries?
“As the Commissioner noted, the plaintiffs were required to show that the field was in an unreasonably dangerous condition, or that the players were ‘negligently controlled’ by the coaches in being made to practice in such conditions. Plaintiffs argued the proof showed that the conditions on the field were unreasonably dangerous. The proof was that the field was wet and muddy, but all witnesses except the plaintiff testified that games had been played and practice had been held under worse conditions, and the video demonstrated that the field was wet, and appeared muddy in spots, but it could not reasonably be concluded from the video that the field was in an unreasonably dangerous condition.
“As the Supreme Court stated in Hames v. State, 808 S.W.2d 41, 44 (Tenn. 1991):
“The Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the State negligently created or maintained a dangerous condition on the [property] and further that foreseeability of the risks and notice had been given to proper State officials at a time sufficiently prior to the injury to enable appropriate remedial measures. T.C.A. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(C) [*8] . The statute itself provides that the State’s liability is to be predicated upon ‘traditional tort concepts of duty and the reasonably prudent person’s standard of care.’ T.C.A. § 9-8-307(c).
“In this case, the proof does not preponderate against the Commissioner’s finding that the coaching staff was not negligent in allowing practice to be held on the day in question, and that the condition of the football field was not unreasonably dangerous. Plaintiff admitted that it was not unusual to play in mud or rain, and that he expected to do so, and the son’s father recognized this as well, although stating he thought the conditions on that date were extraordinary. All of the other witnesses who were there on that day, however, testified that there was nothing unusual about the weather or field conditions, and the video portrayed the conditions that existed. The son also admitted that he did not complain of the allegedly ‘dangerous’ conditions to anyone, and the evidence does not preponderate against the Commissioner’s findings.
“Next, plaintiffs argue that the coaching staff was negligent in its teaching of proper tackling techniques, and base their argument [*9] solely on the son’s testimony that Coach Collins admitted to him at the hospital that he had the linebackers hitting ‘too low.’ Further the plaintiffs pointed out, the State did not call Coach Collins to testify, but neither did plaintiffs, and argue that no witness disputed this testimony, but Coach Hamilton, Coach Taylor, and ‘Doc’ Robertson all testified that proper tackling technique required the player to keep his head and eyes up. The son admitted that he was taught this, as it was in his playbook, and that no one on the coaching staff ever told him otherwise. When questioned about Coach Collins’ alleged statement, Coach Taylor replied that there was no such thing as being too low on the football field, but that they always taught the players to keep their heads up and eyes open. His testimony was corroborated by Hamilton, Robertson, and the son, as well as the exhibits. Accordingly, the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s finding that proper tackling techniques had been taught to the son.”
Garnett Lynn Goforth, R. Lynn Goforth And Wife, Susan D. Goforth v. State of Tennessee; Ct.App.Tenn., at Knoxville; No. E2006-00926-COA-R3-CV, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 94; 2/22/07
Attorneys of Record: (for appellants) Thomas C. Jessee, Johnson City, Tennessee. (for appellee) Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter, Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, and Heather C. Ross, Nashville, Tennessee.
Tennessee Appeals Court Affirms Ruling for University in Negligence Suit
A Tennessee state appeals court has affirmed the ruling of the Claims Commission, siding with East Tennessee State University in a case where it was sued for negligence by a player who suffered an injury in football practice.
Specifically, the appeals court found for the university as to whether the coaches were negligent in their instruction on how to properly tackle a ball carrier as well as on the plaintiff’s claim that the coaches should not have allowed practice to be held in adverse weather conditions.
The incident occurred on April 8, 2000 during an ETSU scrimmage. “(T)here was a steady, cold, early spring rain that day, which caused the field to be in bad condition, especially as it related to mud.” The injury occurred when the plaintiff (Garrett Lynn Goforth) was in an “off tackle fullback veer and (the plaintiff) did what he was supposed to do, which was fill the hole in the offensive line … . As he made the tackle, his feet slipped out from under him and his helmet contacted the fullback in the thigh. As a result, (he) was seriously injured.”
Goforth and his parents sued the university for injuries that the son sustained while practicing football, charging the coaches were “negligent in allowing practice to continue under dangerous conditions.” They also alleged that the coaches were negligent in their training and direction of the team,” specifically regarding tackling.
The defendant answered, denying any negligence, and asserted that the son assumed the risk of playing football.
Following a trial, the commissioner found in favor of the defendant on all claims.
In reviewing the claim, the commissioner found “that plaintiffs relied on Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307 (a)(1)(C), which refers to dangerous conditions on state controlled real property. The Commissioner ruled that in viewing the tape, he could not conclude that the condition of the field was unreasonably dangerous, because ‘football fields get muddy.’ As to the charge that the coaching staff was negligent in allowing the practice to go on, he held that the University had a duty to exercise care of their student-athletes and keep them free from harm, but the University did not breach that duty in this case, and that the coaches had taught proper tackling techniques.”
Among the issues raised on appeal:
1. Whether the Commissioner erred in failing to find that a preponderance of the evidence established that the coaching staff was negligent in allowing practice to continue in the conditions which existed on the date in question?
2. Whether the Commissioner erred in failing to find that a preponderance of the evidence established that the coaching staff was negligent in its teaching of tackling techniques, which led to Goforth’s injuries?
“As the Commissioner noted, the plaintiffs were required to show that the field was in an unreasonably dangerous condition, or that the players were ‘negligently controlled’ by the coaches in being made to practice in such conditions. Plaintiffs argued the proof showed that the conditions on the field were unreasonably dangerous. The proof was that the field was wet and muddy, but all witnesses except the plaintiff testified that games had been played and practice had been held under worse conditions, and the video demonstrated that the field was wet, and appeared muddy in spots, but it could not reasonably be concluded from the video that the field was in an unreasonably dangerous condition.
“As the Supreme Court stated in Hames v. State, 808 S.W.2d 41, 44 (Tenn. 1991):
“The Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the State negligently created or maintained a dangerous condition on the [property] and further that foreseeability of the risks and notice had been given to proper State officials at a time sufficiently prior to the injury to enable appropriate remedial measures. T.C.A. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(C) [*8] . The statute itself provides that the State’s liability is to be predicated upon ‘traditional tort concepts of duty and the reasonably prudent person’s standard of care.’ T.C.A. § 9-8-307(c).
“In this case, the proof does not preponderate against the Commissioner’s finding that the coaching staff was not negligent in allowing practice to be held on the day in question, and that the condition of the football field was not unreasonably dangerous. Plaintiff admitted that it was not unusual to play in mud or rain, and that he expected to do so, and the son’s father recognized this as well, although stating he thought the conditions on that date were extraordinary. All of the other witnesses who were there on that day, however, testified that there was nothing unusual about the weather or field conditions, and the video portrayed the conditions that existed. The son also admitted that he did not complain of the allegedly ‘dangerous’ conditions to anyone, and the evidence does not preponderate against the Commissioner’s findings.
“Next, plaintiffs argue that the coaching staff was negligent in its teaching of proper tackling techniques, and base their argument [*9] solely on the son’s testimony that Coach Collins admitted to him at the hospital that he had the linebackers hitting ‘too low.’ Further the plaintiffs pointed out, the State did not call Coach Collins to testify, but neither did plaintiffs, and argue that no witness disputed this testimony, but Coach Hamilton, Coach Taylor, and ‘Doc’ Robertson all testified that proper tackling technique required the player to keep his head and eyes up. The son admitted that he was taught this, as it was in his playbook, and that no one on the coaching staff ever told him otherwise. When questioned about Coach Collins’ alleged statement, Coach Taylor replied that there was no such thing as being too low on the football field, but that they always taught the players to keep their heads up and eyes open. His testimony was corroborated by Hamilton, Robertson, and the son, as well as the exhibits. Accordingly, the evidence does not preponderate against the Trial Court’s finding that proper tackling techniques had been taught to the son.”
Garnett Lynn Goforth, R. Lynn Goforth And Wife, Susan D. Goforth v. State of Tennessee; Ct.App.Tenn., at Knoxville; No. E2006-00926-COA-R3-CV, 2007 Tenn. App. LEXIS 94; 2/22/07
Attorneys of Record: (for appellants) Thomas C. Jessee, Johnson City, Tennessee. (for appellee) Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter, Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, and Heather C. Ross, Nashville, Tennessee.
