A California state appeals court has affirmed the ruling of a trial court, which dismissed the claim of a football player, who sued another player and his head coach after he was attacked by the player in the film room.
In so ruling, the panel of judges affirmed that plaintiff Nicholas Sandford “failed to set forth facts sufficient to state any cause of action” against defendant and head coach Chuck Long.
Sandford, a former member of the San Diego State University (SDSU) football team, alleged that his teammate, Lance Louis, physically attacked him while he was watching football films in a meeting room at SDSU.
However, for purposes of the instant opinion, it was the suit against Long and the defendant’s motion to dismiss that the court examined. The three causes of action against Long were: ratification of a battery, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
After the trial court ruled for Long, Sandford appealed, claiming that the judge erred in sustaining Long’s demurrer without leave to amend.
Central to the plaintiff’s ratification of a battery claim against Long was his allegation that Long “was aware of Louis’s violent propensities.” In fact, Sandford alleged that Long had attempted to “’cover up’ the attack and specifically, that Long had ‘lied to members of the media’ by stating that Sandford had suffered an injury in practice and would be unable to participate in the team’s remaining games. Sandford alleged that Long engaged in these actions in order to protect Louis from any potential discipline that might prevent him from playing in the team’s remaining games. Sandford further alleged that Long had ‘refused to repudiate [Louis’s] misconduct in any regard,’ noting that Louis had been permitted to play in the final three games of the 2008 season. Sandford alleged that through these actions, Long ‘ratified and approved the unlawful and tortious conduct of defendant Louis.’”
Turning to the negligent supervision claim, Sandford incorporated the above allegations and stated, “Long . . . knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that defendant Louis had a propensity for violent, aggressive, confrontational, and abusive behavior, and knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known that if Louis’s behavior was not confronted, appropriate discipline meted out, and other reasonable steps taken by these defendants to address and attempt to prevent such behavior, an undue risk to persons such as Sandford would exist because of the negligent failure of these defendants to take appropriate preventative measures.”
As for the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, Sandford alleged that Long had “trivialized the magnitude of the misconduct and Sandford’s injuries and had made public statements that implied that Sandford may have provoked the attack. Sandford alleged that he suffered ‘humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress’ as a result of Long’s conduct.”
Long filed a demurrer to Sandford’s complaint. In a supporting brief, Long argued that “Sandford’s battery claim failed because case law established that university officials may not be found vicariously liable for torts committed by student athletes. Long maintained that Sandford’s negligent supervision claim failed because case law established that university officials do not owe a duty of supervision over their students. Finally, Long argued that Sandford had failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because Stanford’s complaint failed to allege that Long had engaged in conduct that was sufficiently outrageous to state such a claim, and failed to sufficiently allege that Sandford had suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Long’s conduct.”
Ultimately, Long’s arguments carried the day with the trial court, which sustained Long’s demurrer without leave to amend. It concluded that Sandford had “failed to adequately allege that Long had ratified Louis’s conduct. In addition, citing case law noting that university officials do not have a duty to exercise control of student conduct, the court concluded that Sandford’s claim for negligent supervision failed. Finally, the court concluded that Sandford had failed to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court reasoned that Sandford had failed to adequately allege either that Long had engaged in outrageous conduct and or that Sandford had suffered severe emotional distress as a result of Long’s conduct.”
The appeals court seemed to concur. On the first cause of action, it wrote that the plaintiff “failed to adequately allege that Long may be deemed to have authorized Louis’s attack pursuant to the doctrine of ratification.”
Turning to the negligent supervision allegation, the panel wrote that “Sandford has failed to establish that Long had a duty to supervise Louis and/or a duty to protect Sandford from Louis’s violent acts. The trial court therefore did not err in determining that Sandford failed to state a cause of action for negligent supervision.”
Finally, the plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress similarly failed as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the actions led to the requisite “severe or extreme emotional distress” (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050.
Nicholas Sandford v. Chuck Long; Ct. App. Calif., 4th App. Dist., Div. One; D059395, 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1978; 3/15/12
