By Michael S. Carroll
An appellate court in Connecticut affirmed a previous ruling in a lawsuit brought by the mother of an injured girls’ soccer player who sustained a concussion during practice. In doing so, the court explained, and relied upon, the concept of governmental immunity and took a common-sense approach to injuries sustained during the course of a routine contact sport.
Background
In October of 2013, “Angelina,” who was 12 years old and in the seventh grade, was participating in a mandatory soccer practice at Har-Bur Middle School in Burlington, CT. The practice was supervised by gym teacher and coach, Robert Samudosky. During the practice, the team was split into four groups, each consisting of six players. Samudosky participated as a member of one of these teams while they engaged in scrimmages inside the gymnasium of the middle school. At some point during the scrimmage, Angelina and Samudosky found themselves on opposing teams. Samudosky had possession of the ball in his defensive area and went to clear it. He looked down and kicked the ball quite forcibly, striking Angelina in her face from approximately six feet away. As a result, Angelina became “tingly” and “dizzy,” and her nose began to bleed. After Samudosky had her go to the girls’ locker room to treat her bloody nose, she returned and participated in the remainder of the practice. Samudosky never informed Angelina’s mother, Theresa Maselli, regarding the incident. After learning of the injury, Maselli subsequently took Angelina to see a physician, who diagnosed her with a concussion. Due to lingering symptoms, Angelina did not attend school full-time until January of 2014 and eventually transferred to another school and repeated the seventh grade. She reported that she continued to have nosebleeds and headaches on a regular basis and that they leave her feeling humiliated. Maselli attempted to follow-up with school officials regarding the incident but was unhappy with the response she received.
Trial Court
In July of 2016, plaintiff Maselli brought suit against four defendants: (a) Regional School District Number 10, (b) superintendent Alan Beitman, (c) middle school principal Kenneth Smith, and (d) coach Robert Samudosky in Connecticut Superior Court. Maselli asserted six total claims against defendants, four directed solely at Samudosky and two against all defendants. The claims against Samudosky included assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The other two claims against all defendants were based in negligence and recklessness. In August of 2017, defendants moved for summary judgment on all counts, asserting that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity pursuant to statute Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557n (a) (2) (B), which shields a municipality from liability for damages resulting from the negligent acts or omissions which require the exercise of judgment or discretion as an official function of the authority expressly or impliedly granted by law. Defendants also argued that plaintiff’s claims regarding assault and battery and recklessness failed as a matter of law. When reviewing the four claims of the case directed at Samudosky alone and whether he committed civil assault and battery on Angelina, the court found that he did not. The court reasoned that there was no evidence that Samudosky acted with an intent to hit or injure Angelina, which is required under the claim, and that instead her injury resulted from a common and normal practice in the sport of soccer. As a result, the claim of intentional assault and battery failed as a matter of law. Likewise, the court found that the facts did not support a finding of negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress on Angelina. The court noted that such a finding would need to demonstrate outrageousness on the part of the defendant and the existence of severe emotional distress. In the present case, there was no evidence that Angelina experienced an extended period of distress nor did she seek medical treatment. Additionally, governmental immunity shielded Samudosky from liability related to these claims. The plaintiff argued that Angelina fell under the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity. This exception exists when the circumstances make it apparent to a public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable person to imminent harm. In such a scenario, governmental immunity may not apply. The court found that Angelina was not an identified person for purposes of the exception, as she voluntarily chose to participate in the soccer team, and therefore the exception did not apply.
Count five against all defendants alleged negligence based on their response to the incident, including their failure to immediately notify plaintiff of her daughter’s injuries and failure to address her educational needs. Again, plaintiff attempted to utilize the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity, but the court found that Angelina was not subject to imminent harm during the course of a normal soccer practice. In Count six against all defendants, plaintiff asserted a recklessness claim but merely incorporated the same allegations contained in Count five regarding negligence. Defendants argued that such a claim fails as a matter of law, and the court agreed, granting summary judgment.
Appellate Court
On appeal, plaintiff argued that the court improperly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgement because, among other things, the court improperly concluded that defendants were entitled to governmental immunity and that Angelina was an identifiable person to which the imminent harm exception to governmental immunity applied. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the trial court properly granted motion for summary judgment and subsequently affirmed the decision.
Michael S. Carroll is an Associate Professor of Sport Management at Troy University specializing in research related to sport law and risk management in sport and recreation. He has published over 30 articles and delivered over 50 presentations at professional conferences. He is currently serving as Past-President of the Sport and Recreation Law Association. He lives in Orlando, FL.
