A Michigan state appeals court affirmed a lower court’s ruling, granting summary disposition to a school district and coach, who were sued after a cheerleader suffered a concussion while performing a stunt.
In so ruling, the panel found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate gross negligence on the part of the defendants. For example, the coach had provided weeks of training on the stunt prior to the injury.
Plaintiff Lindsey Friend was a ninth grader at Clarkston Community School District (Clarkston) when she sustained an injury. Her coach was Jaclyn Fahrner, who had been hired by the district in 2005. After being hired, Fahrner became a member of the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) and attended meetings and camps regarding cheerleading techniques, methods and safety. As the head coach, she admitted she was responsible for monitoring the safety of her players, according to the court.
Tryouts for the fall cheerleading teams at Clarkston occur in the early spring. To make the teams, players are required to complete various activities and skills. An assessment of each player’s activities and skills at tryouts could require between 20 and 45 minutes, and each coach completed an assessment sheet with comments. If selected, team members would practice two to three times a week beginning in April, and then attend a summer cheerleading camp.
Fahrner testified that to promote safety, her teams would begin each practice with 45 minutes of conditioning and strength training, which included stretching, running, sit-ups, push-ups, hand stands, weightlifting in circuits, and jumping. Fahrner testified that she relied on the MHSAA cheerleading manual, which explains how to perform every maneuver. She would explain the maneuver step-by-step to players, and when possible, more experienced players would also demonstrate the maneuver. Fahrner would teach the players the maneuvers in “progression,” from basic to more intricate or difficult. Two gymnastics coaches also came to practice weekly to teach players; they worked on mainly floor exercises in the football season and would help with “stunting” in the winter competition season.
Fahrner recalled that the plaintiff was assigned to “one of our more advanced” stunt groups. That stunt group had mastered a “single twist” in June or July 2008, and by September 2008, the group was given the opportunity to attempt the next progression, the “double twist.” The double twist involves a player (flyer) being tossed into the air, turning two full rotations, and then landing into the arms of the players on the ground (bases). Fahrner testified that the double twist was a common maneuver for junior varsity and varsity players, but she only had two flyers that were able to master it while she was a coach. In her stunt group, the plaintiff was the flyer and the remaining players were bases. Although there were no experienced flyers on the team who could demonstrate a double twist for Friend, Fahrner’s assistant coach had been a flyer in high school and she helped the plaintiff.
Initially, the stunt group practiced the double twist on the ground, but by the time of the September 29 practice in the cafeteria, the group was ready to try it without modifications. When the stunt group attempted the maneuver, the remaining members of the cheerleading team surrounded the group as “spotters” to catch the plaintiff if necessary and Fahrner and the assistant coach were nearby to instruct and observe. Fahrner recalled that the bases and backspotter failed to catch plaintiff as she attempted to land in their arms, according to the court. She fell, but did not lose consciousness. Fahrner contacted the school’s athletic trainer, Stephanie LeBeau, and the plaintiff’s mother.
There was evidence in the record that the plaintiff subsequently suffered at least temporary memory loss, headaches and neck pain. Although the plaintiff explained that she needed special education accommodations in high school, she nevertheless excelled in high school and received a scholarship to Aquinas College, where she ran track, according to the court.
On November 9, 2012, Friend sued, alleging gross negligence against the defendants. She maintained that they owed her duties to train, spot, and supervise cheerleaders, and to foresee and prevent physical injuries. She claimed that they breached their duties by failing to utilize proper safety equipment and consider “fall protection, critical height, gymnastic progressions, or other safety considerations.” She further claimed that their conduct was so reckless that it demonstrated a substantial lack of concern for whether injury would result and was the proximate cause of her injuries.
On August 28, 2013, the defendants moved for summary disposition, arguing that Clarkston was immune from the plaintiff’s tort claim because it was engaged in the exercise of a governmental function when the plaintiff fell at a cheerleading practice. They also argued that Fahrner was immune from Friend’s tort claim because her conduct did not amount to gross negligence. The trial court granted the motion for summary disposition and the plaintiff appealed.
In its analysis, the appeals court noted the court in Tarlea v Crabtree, 263 Mich App 80, 88; 687 NW2d 333 (2004) which held that “generally, governmental employees acting within the scope of their authority are immune from tort liability except in cases in which their actions constitute gross negligence.”
That court opined that “simply alleging that an actor could have done more is insufficient under Michigan law, because, with the benefit of hindsight, a claim can always be made that extra precautions could have influenced the result…. (Further), saying that a defendant could have taken additional precautions is insufficient to find ordinary negligence, much less recklessness. Even the most exacting standard of conduct, the negligence standard, does not require one to exhaust every conceivable precaution to be considered not negligent.
“The much less demanding standard of care—gross negligence—suggests, instead, almost a willful disregard of precautions or measures to attend to safety and a singular disregard for substantial risks. It is as though, if an objective observer watched the actor, he could conclude, reasonably, that the actor simply did not care about the safety or welfare of those in his charge.”
The court in the instant case noted that the evidence shows that Fahrner “took numerous precautions to protect the safety of plaintiff and all the other cheerleaders.” In addition, it rejected Friend’s contention that Fahrner’s conduct was the proximate cause of her injuries. To be “the proximate cause” of an injury, the gross negligence must be “the one most immediate, efficient, and direct cause” preceding the injury. Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439, 462; 613 NW2d 307 (2000).
“Here, the plaintiff fails to offer any admissible evidence that she was required by Fahrner to perform the double twist,” according to the appeals court. Therefore, just as in Tarlea, the plaintiff cannot establish that Fahrner’s conduct was the proximate cause of her injuries. Rather, as the defendant argues, the bases’ failure to catch plaintiff was the most immediate, efficient, and direct cause of the plaintiff’s fall. Accordingly, summary disposition was proper in this case as Fahrner’s conduct was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.”
Lindsey Friend v. Clarkston Community School District, and Jaclyn Fahrner; Ct. App. Mich.; No. 319826, 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 1282; 6/18/15
