By Gina McKlveen, Esq.
Little can prepare someone for the loss of a child, but according to the parents of a deceased high school football player there was more the school district should have done to prepare for their teenage son’s injury that could have possibly prevented his death. Unfortunately, an Arizona appellate court disagreed, expressing its condolences to the player’s family, before ultimately siding with the school district given the relevant standards of the law.
Prior to the 2017 high school football season, Glendale Union High School District (“school district”) implemented an Emergency Action Plan which laid out the following actions to take place when a medical emergency occurred: (1) call 911, (2) use an Automatic External Defibrillator (AED) if the injured person is unresponsive and not breathing, (3) designate a “911 Team,” (4) set out an entrance for the ambulance, and (5) instruct the athletic director/trainer on how to operate the AED. In 2016, the high school football player (“C.S.”) suffered a concussion that caused his parents to purchase a new helmet for him to wear in the 2017 season. While wearing the new helmet during a football game on October 20, 2017, C.S. suffered another serious head injury that caused him to collapse and undergo a seizure on the field. Despite the school district following its Emergency Action Plan, C.S. died within a short time as a direct result of his head injury.
The parents of C.S. subsequently filed a wrongful death and negligence lawsuit against the school district, as well as claims against the manufacturing and distributing companies responsible for making the helmet, which were later settled. However, the allegations against the school district proceeded to court with C.S.’s parents claiming that there should have been (1) further planning with the local emergency department, (2) instructions provided to certain “key personnel” describing their planned roles, (3) open access to the gate prior to the game, and (4) an ambulance onsite at the game. Additionally, they alleged that the school district failed to (1) inform them fully of the dangers of concussions in football, (2) address adequately the concussion C.S. suffered in 2016 by neither preventing him from playing nor providing better protective measures, and (3) properly inspect and maintain the new helmet C.S. was wearing during the fateful game. In response, the school district filed a motion for summary judgment based on statutory immunity for following its previously adopted Emergency Action Plan.
After hearing oral arguments from both sides, the lower court granted the school district’s motion. In reaching its conclusion, the lower court held that the school district was immune because its plan sufficiently directed who and how 911 would be called. The lower court also found that there was no genuine dispute of material fact since C.S.’s parents failed to offer any evidence to support their assertion that C.S. would have survived but for some alleged breach by the school district. Thereafter, C.S.’s parents appealed the lower court’s decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
The appellate court began its decision by acknowledging “Our sympathies lie with C.S.’s parents. They have suffered an unimaginable loss. But not every loss is actionable. Here, the law lies with the district.” In analyzing the law, the appellate court started first with the parties’ arguments related to the school district’s absolute immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.01. This rule states that a public entity is immune from liability “for acts and omissions of its employees constituting . . . [t]he exercise of an administrative function involving the determination of fundamental governmental policy,” which includes deciding: (1) whether to seek or provide resources to purchase equipment; and (2) “whether and how to spend existing resources, including those allocated for equipment, facilities and personnel.” Citing an earlier decided case, Myers v. City of Tempe, 212 Ariz. 128, 131, (2006), the appellate court noted “[a] public entity is immune from non-discretionary decisions followed automatically from its own policy decision.” Although C.S.’s parents attempted to distinguish its claims from the facts of Myers, they failed to produce any evidence that the school district deviated from its Emergency Action Plan. Therefore, the appellate court found no error to support the parents’ appeal.
Next, the appellate court addressed C.S.’s parents’ claims that there was a genuine dispute of material fact based on their allegations of negligence against the school district. After stating the elements required to prove negligence, namely “(1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages,” the appellate court stated that the parties do not dispute that there was legal duty in this case. Rather, the issue to be decided on appeal was “whether the [school] district breached its duty by failing to meet the standard of care, and whether the alleged breach caused C.S.’s injury and death.” However, after reviewing the evidence presented by C.S.’s parents, or lack thereof, the appellate court found that they presented no well-founded expert evidence from which a jury could conclude the district’s actions or inactions cause C.S.’s death. Once again, the appellate court found no error to support the parents’ appeal.
Thus, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the totality of the decision by the lower court granting summary judgment in favor of the school district. The appellate court also denied C.S. parents’ request for costs connected to this appeal because their claims failed. Outcomes such as this are undoubtedly disheartening to the already grieving family members, but as this case demonstrates, tragedy does not always beget legal victory.
