An Ohio state appeals court has reversed, in part, the ruling of a trial court, which had granted summary judgment to a school district and officials after they were sued by a student athlete, who was injured while competing in the pole vault event.
As part of the ruling, the trial judge will revisit the pole vaulter’s negligence claim against the school district. However, the plaintiff’s claim against the officials has been effectively dismissed, unless the plaintiff chooses to appeal the ruling.
The incident occurred on May 7, 2002, when Donald Henney, the plaintiff, was competing at a track meet held at Shelby High School. During one of his vaults, the plaintiff’s upper body hit the hard surface to the right of the landing pad, causing injury to the plaintiff. It was undisputed that the rules of the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFSHSA) require that two-inch thick mats or “side pads” be placed on hard or unyielding surfaces adjacent to a pole vault landing pad.
Claiming the side pads would have prevented the injury, the plaintiff sued the Shelby City School District as well as the school’s athletic director, track coach David M. Downs and the pole vault judge that day.
The AD and the judge were dismissed early on from the case, leaving the district and track coach. The trial court granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants, spawning the present appeal.
The appeals court sided with the plaintiff early and often regarding his claim against the school district.
Addressing the assumption of risk doctrine, for example, it wrote that the sponsor of a sporting event has a duty “not to increase the risk of harm over and above the inherent risk of the sport.” Bundschu v. Naffah (2002), 147 Ohio App.3d 105, 112, 2002 Ohio 607, 768 N.E.2d 1215.; Sicard v. University of Dayton (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 27, 30, 660 N.E.2d 1241.
“Appellant has shown that NFSHSA rules require the use of side mats next to the landing pad to minimize the risk of falling onto a hard surface. (NFSHSA Track and Field and Cross Country 2002 Rules Book). Appellees increased the risk to the competitors in the pole vaulting event by failing to put the side pads in place. Accordingly, this court concludes that the doctrine of assumption of the risk does not apply.”
Next, the appeals court turned to the trial court’s decision involving Downs, who had argued that he was immune because there was no showing that his actions or omissions were wanton or reckless.
The appeals court agreed, finding that his conduct “was, at most, negligent. The record shows that Downs was not aware of the problem with the pads. Downs had asked the pole vault team to put the pads out themselves. Although he did not check the pads to ensure that they were properly set up, the equipment was inspected by the track official and no concerns were relayed to Downs. Accordingly, we see no showing that Downs’ conduct was with malicious purpose, in bad faith, wanton or reckless. Upon review, we conclude that, summary judgment was appropriate as to Downs.”
Donald Henney v. Shelby City School District, et al.; Ct.App.Ohio, 5th App.Dist., Richland Co.; Case No. 2005 CA 0064; 2006 Ohio 1382; 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 1251; 3/23/06
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) James L. Murray, James S. Timmerberg, Sandusky, OH. (for defendant) James A. Climer, Cleveland, OH.
