By Jared Good, Esq.
During an indoor practice for the Poconos Mountain High School wrestling team on December 18, 2017, Plaintiff-Appellant A.C. suffered a catastrophic leg injury. Defendants Josh Haines and Mike Hollar (“the Coaches”), were the head coaches at the time when the wrestling team was playing a football-like game without protective equipment. The athletes wore wrestling shoes designed to grip the floormats, but nothing else.
During this game, it was alleged that the Coaches expected the athletes to “hit each other hard” and not restrict any type of moves. Plaintiff made a tackle on another player, to which the Coaches purportedly informed the other player to target A.C. in retaliation. Following this, the other student made an aggressive tackle on A.C. while his leg was planted on the mat, leading to a broken femur and debilitating injuries. No other student was injured during the game, and the Coaches were not aware of any similar injuries happening in the past.
At the trial court, the Coaches were granted qualified immunity on the Plaintiff’s constitutional claims and dismissed the suit. Plaintiff then appealed the decision to the Third Circuit, which ultimately affirmed the decision.
Upon review, the only issue to be decided was whether the Coaches were entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s claims. In a two-part analysis, qualified immunity is determined by whether “(1) the [state actor] violated a constitutional right, and (2) whether the right was clearly established, such that it would have been clear to a reasonable [state actor] that his conduct was unlawful.” Due process concerns occasionally requires the state to defend against dangers of “the state’s own creation.” This has four elements to examine:
(1) a harm that foreseeably and fairly directly resulted from the state actor’s conduct; (2) state conduct that “shocks the conscience”; (3) a relationship with the state that placed the plaintiff in a “discrete class of persons subjected to the potential harm brought about by the state’s actions”; and (4) an affirmative use of state authority to place the plaintiff in greater danger than had the state not acted.
The court acknowledged the existence of a student-athlete’s right to be protected from further harm, and that a state is found to have violated that right if they require an athlete to continue practicing or competing. However, no evidence was provided that showed Plaintiff having suffered a prior injury and then being forced to return to practice. As a result, under prior Circuit precedent, Plaintiff’s claims were rejected.
Robert Cuvo et al. v. Pocono Mountain School District et al.; 3rd Cir.; No. 22-1576; 8/4/23
