A state court in Connecticut has dismissed parts of a complaint brought by the mother of a student, who alleged that a school district, coach and another student were responsible for an injury her daughter suffered in a floor hockey game.
In so ruling, the court found that a plaintiff must show “reckless or intentional conduct on the part of the defendant … to plead a cause of action for injuries sustained by a participant in a team contact sport. Proof of mere negligence will not suffice.”
The minor plaintiff claimed she was injured while participating in a mandatory floor hockey game which took place during a physical education class at James H. Moran Middle School in Wallingford, Connecticut. In counts five and six of her complaint, she alleged that the student was liable for negligently tripping her with a hockey stick during the floor hockey game. They further claim that the student “knew or should have known that pushing the hockey stick out in front of Marisa Lenti would cause her to fall to the gym floor” and that the defendant “failed to pay attention, with regard to the hockey stick she was running with, and negligently failed to warn the minor plaintiff of the imminent contact with the hockey stick.”
On July 13, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, relying on the Supreme Court’s holding in Jaworski v. Kiernan, 241 Conn. 399, 696 A.2d 332 (1997), and its progeny in support of their argument that “the appropriate standard of liability to impose upon co-participants in a team sport is the duty to refrain from reckless or intentional conduct.”
The plaintiffs, however, sought to distinguish their case from Jaworski v. Kiernan, by arguing that the case at bar involves a minor child who was injured by another child with a hockey stick while mandatorily participating in a non-contact middle school physical education class floor hockey game. whereas Jaworski v. Kiernan, supra, 241 Conn. 399, “involved adults who had voluntarily decided to participate in a recreational contact team sport,” according to the court. The plaintiffs did not, however, cite to any authority in support of their contentions.
“In Jaworski v. Kiernan, supra, 241 Conn. 399, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of participant liability for injuries sustained during a team contact sport where the parties were adult, voluntarily participants in a co-ed recreational soccer league. During a soccer match, the defendant made contact with the plaintiff, causing permanent injury, and the plaintiff sued the defendant under theories of both negligence and recklessness. Id., 402. The Supreme Court ultimately held that ‘as a matter of policy, it is appropriate to adopt a standard of care imposing on the defendant, a participant in a team contact sport, a legal duty to refrain from reckless or intentional conduct. Proof of mere negligence is insufficient to create liability.’ Id., 412.
“In reaching its holding, the Supreme Court cited four factors to be considered in determining the extent of the legal duty to be imposed upon the defendant participants: ‘(1) the normal expectations of participants in the sport in which the plaintiff and the defendant were engaged; (2) the public policy of encouraging continued vigorous participation in recreational sporting activities while weighing the safety of the participants; (3) the avoidance of increased litigation; and (4) the decisions of other jurisdictions.’ Id., 407. In applying these factors, the Supreme Court stated that ‘[i]n athletic competitions the object obviously is to win. In games, particularly those played by teams and involving some degree of physical contact, it is reasonable to assume that the competitive spirit of the participants will result in some rules violations and injuries . . . The normal expectations of participants in contact team sports include the potential for injuries resulting from conduct that violates the rules of the sport . . . [These] normal expectations of participants in contact team sports counsel the adoption of reckless or intentional conduct duty of care standard for those participants . . . [A] recklessness standard will sufficiently protect participants in athletic contests by affording them a right of action against those who cause injuries not inherent in the particular game in which the participants are engaged . . . without dampening the competitive spirit of the participants.’ Id., 407-09.
“Applying the factors set forth by the court in Jaworski v. Kiernan, supra, 241 Conn. 399, several courts have found proof of mere negligence insufficient to create liability where a minor student is injured by another minor student during a mandatory physical education team contact sport. In Baer v. Regional, School District, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No. 98 0148373 (July 19, 1999, J. Pellegrino) (25 Conn. L. Rptr. 376, 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2300), a case nearly identical to the present case, the court, J. Pellegrino, granted a minor defendant’s motion to strike a minor plaintiff’s complaint for damages sustained during a physical education class floor hockey game, because the minor plaintiff had failed to allege more than mere negligence on the part of the minor defendant. Considering the public policy arguments advanced by the Supreme Court in Jaworski v. Kiernan, supra, 241 Conn. 399, the court in Baer v. Regional, School District, supra, 25 Conn. L. Rptr. 376, 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2300, held that there are compelling public policy arguments for holding a participant in a contact sport to a higher legal duty than mere negligence, even when the participant is a minor whose participation is mandated. ‘[S]tudents would be hesitant to participate or their parents would refuse to allow them to participate in gym class athletic contests if mere negligence would expose them to a lawsuit.’ Id. ‘[T]he law should not place unreasonable burdens on the free and vigorous participation in sports by our youth.’ Jaworski v. Kiernan, supra, 241 Conn. 409.
“This court finds the rationale and analysis of Baer v. Regional, School District, supra, 25 Conn. L. Rptr. 376, 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2300, to be instructive. The normal expectation of a participant in a floor hockey game is to come into contact with another participant or another participant’s hockey stick. Allegations of reckless or intentional conduct on the part of the defendant co-participant are therefore necessary to plead a cause of action for injuries sustained by a participant in a team contact sport. Proof of mere negligence will not suffice.”
Lenti v. Jacobson; Super. Ct. Conn., Jud. Dist. of New Haven; CV095029998S, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2985; 11/6/09
