By Courtney Dunn, of Segal McCambridge
When infant plaintiff agreed to play for Smithtown High School East’s varsity football team, it is undisputed that he assumed the risks inherent to the game of football. However, the question as to whether he assumed the risk of injury during off-season weightlifting with his team has sparked some controversy.
Infant plaintiff’s mother commenced an action against Smithtown High School East (Annitto v. Smithtown Cent. Sch. Dist., 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5973 (App. Div. 2022)), on behalf of her son for injuries he sustained while lifting weights under the supervision of his football coach. In June of 2015, while infant plaintiff was performing a squat lift in the weight room of Smithtown High School East he lost control of the 295-pound bar on his third repetition. Infant plaintiff fell backward, crushing one of his fingers between the weight bar and the support rack. This “weigh-training test” was overseen by the high school football coach, who assigned another high school football player as infant plaintiff’s spotter. Infant plaintiff’s mother alleged that the Smithtown Center School District was negligent in its supervision of the infant plaintiff during the off-season weight-training test.
Defendant School District moved for summary judgment, citing the doctrine of primary assumption of risk and its application to risks inherent to the sport for which a player is practicing. Suffolk County Supreme Court granted the School District’s summary judgment motion on these same grounds.
On appeal, however, the judgment was reversed. While the Court agreed that infant plaintiff, as a participant in the sport of football, consented to those risks inherent to the sport of football, those risks, according to the Court, do not extend to infant plaintiff’s attempt to lift the 295-pound bar. The Court made clear that infant plaintiff’s assumption of risk occurred when he joined the football team, meaning he assumed only those risks inherent to the sport of football. Therefore, the Court found those inherent risks do not include losing control of a 295-pound bar.
The Court did assess the fact that the doctrine of primary assumption of risk applies to practice sessions which, according to the School District, includes the weight-lifting test. In doing so, it did not agree with the School District, finding that the risk of the football coach failing to provide adequate supervision during the weight-test, resulting in a finger-crushing injury, was too far removed to be something infant plaintiff considered when he joined the football team. The Court likened these circumstances to the infant plaintiff simply “getting in shape” for his football season, rather than a “practice session.” The Court noted that extending the doctrine of primary assumption of risk to this set of facts would risk the consequences of a person assuming all risks of just getting in shape, and remove a school district’s duty to its students to provide safe conditions for activities remotely related to sports.
The School District further argued that it was not liable for negligent supervision because the accident occurred “so quickly that no amount of supervision could have prevented it.” See, e.g., Lopez v. Freeport Union Free School Dist., 288 A.D.2d 355, 356. Again, the Court did not agree. Infant plaintiff testified that he was noticeably “struggling” on his third repetition, which should have been the spotter’s cue to step in. The School District was unable to offer any evidence regarding the spotter’s attention to infant plaintiff, or any other details to refute infant plaintiff’s timeline.
Overall, the School District was unable to connect the weight-test to an inherent risk flowing from the sport of football and failed to eliminate a triable issue of fact as to the School District’s ability to perceive infant plaintiff’s struggle, or whether the coach should have allowed another student to spot in the first place.
It is important to note that the Court’s analysis is not inclusive of any and every off-field injury. Reversal of the School District’s summary judgment motion win does not limit assumption of risk success to activities that take place on the field when the players are geared up and ready for kick off. However, the Court has noted its hesitance to apply the doctrine to activities that are too far removed from the sport itself. Still, the Court did not touch on some additional facts that seem somewhat relevant. For example, it is unclear whether infant plaintiff was instructed by his coach to lift that amount of weight, whether infant plaintiff had done so before and, if he had, did he struggle? It is not mentioned whether other similarly sized players lifted the same or similar amount of weight or had infant plaintiff’s experience with weight lifting. Was infant plaintiff’s position on the team defensive tackle, or was he the kicker? If the former, the necessity of conditioning and weightlifting seems not only like a risk inherent to his position on the football team, but may be required for infant plaintiff’s safety on the field.
