A California state appeals court has reversed a lower court, which granted summary judgment to a school district that had been sued by student athlete for negligence after the student athlete suffered an injury during a football practice.
In overturning the decision, the appeals court concluded that the district did not follow “standard practice” when it failed to distribute a mouth guard to the student athletes prior to the practice, which might have prevented the injury.
The plaintiff in the case was Mark Sonetti. During a kickoff coverage drill in August of 2011, Sonetti was hit from behind, and pushed into another player. He broke his jaw. Sonetti sued the Huntington Beach High Union School District, alleging his injuries were the result of the district’s negligence. The district successfully moved for summary judgment based on primary assumption of the risk. It claimed, in what the appeals court deemed a “remarkable position” in the instant opinion that the absence of football helmets “does not increase the risks inherent in football.” The trial court granted the motion, reasoning that “bumping, blocking and falling are inherent in football.”
Sonetti appealed.
“The law of assumption of the risk as regards sports injuries is easy to conceptualize, but sometimes hard to apply: The plaintiff assumes the normal, inherent risks in the sports activity, but does not assume increased risks attributable to the defendant, usually an organizer, instructor, or promoter,” wrote the appeals court.
“The basic rule is that courts should ascertain what is the standard practice as regards a given safety feature in an organized sporting activity. Going the extra mile beyond what is normal, or providing safety precautions beyond what is standard practice, is not required of a defendant. But complying with standard, customary safety procedures is. Sonetti argues that supplying helmets and mouth guards is a standard, customary safety procedure that would have prevented or ameliorated his injury.”
The appeals court noted that “there is no dispute that it is standard practice in kickoff coverage drills for players to wear mouth guards.” But in this circumstance, the helmets and mouth guards had not yet arrived..
“Vince Lombardi once famously said that practice doesn’t make perfect, only perfect practice makes perfect,” wrote the appeals court. “The kickoff coverage drill here may have fallen short of that standard as well as the law. By not waiting until the helmets and mouth guards arrived, the team lost an experienced player to a broken jaw. Football has its inherent risks, but in most contexts, including this kickoff coverage drill, the standard practice appears to be mitigation of those risks by playing the game with helmets and mouth guards. A jury should decide whether that appearance is fact. It was error to grant the motion for summary judgment.”
Mark Sonetti II, v. Huntington Beach Union High School District et al.,; Ct. App. Calif., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3; G049198, 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7088; 10/1/14
Attorneys of Record: (for Plaintiff and Appellant) Allen Flatt Ballidis & Leslie, and Michael C. Bock. (for Defendants and Respondents) Gibeaut, Mahan & Briscoe, Gary R. Gibeaut and John W. Allen.
