By John J. Miller, Sport Management Professor, University of Dubuque
The actions between two junior varsity football players, M.C. from Evangel Christian Academy, Inc. (hereafter referred as “Evangel”) and C.S. from Airline High School, led to a legal battle (Slack v. Copeland, 2022), where one party clearly came out on top.
During a high school football game, C.S. and M.C. became entangled, resulting in M.C. punching C.S. and breaking the jaw of C.S. At the time of the incident, C.S. was 16 years old and M.C. was 17 years old.
In the specific play in question, C.S. blocked M.C., and M.C. purportedly reacted by grabbing C.S.’s facemask. M.C. allegedly continued holding onto C.S.’s facemask, dragging him by his facemask. C.S., who may have lost his balance, took ahold of M.C.’s facemask causing him to yank his chin to his chest. As a result, M.C. and C.S. were left grasping each other’s facemasks. The question arose as to who grabbed whose facemask first. Additionally, there was a point of contention of whether M.C. grasped C.S.’s facemask at all. However, C.S. contended that M.C. punched him in the face, breaking his jaw in two place and as a result of the punch thrown by M.C., C.S. had to have surgery, which required him to have his jaw wired shut for about one month.
As parents of their minor son, C. S., Jay and Kimberly Slack, the plaintiffs, filed a petition for damages against Patricia Copeland, parent of M.C., and Evangel High School as co-defendants. The Slacks stated that Evangel, where M.C. attended high school, had a duty to provide reasonable supervision of its students, including its football players, and it negligently failed to do so in this case. The Slacks also asserted that Evangel negligently allowed M.C. to play football due to his previous history of violence.
Evangel filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the trial court to dismiss the Slacks’ claims against it. Evangel argued that the Slacks could not prove: 1) it was negligent in supervising M.C., 2) that C.S.’s injury was foreseeable, rather than a spontaneous event, or 3) that it had constructive or actual knowledge that such an injury was possible. Evangel alleged that continual supervision in the situation that gave rise to the lawsuit was impractical. Evangel further stated the coaches instructed the players not to react by throwing a punch. Moreover, Evangel argued that M.C. did not have a propensity for violence, and it had no reason to suspect he would be involved in this type of incident.
Opposing Evangel’s motion for summary judgment, the Slacks referred to M.C.’s deposition in which he indicated that he did not know how to react to C.S. grabbing his facemask. As a result, the plaintiffs alleged that Evangel’s coaches did not teach their players how to react should a similar situation arise such as the one between M.C. and the plaintiff’s son. The Slacks further argued that Evangel had a legal duty to provide players with instruction and training, and that there remains a genuine issue of material fact of whether Evangel breached that duty. Furthermore, the Slacks stated that they had received M.C.’s disciplinary record, which showed three prior infractions, one for “fighting,” and two for “disrespect of a staff member,” both of which the Slacks claimed were grounds for expulsion. Additionally, the Slacks addressed the deposition statements from Evangel coach, D. J. Curry, and former Evangel Principal, Albert Dean. According to Coach Curry, Evangel coaches have a duty to teach student athletes to refrain from “throwing punches.” Principal Dean stated that while student-athletes should have sufficient self-discipline to refrain from fighting, it was not always possible.
Evangel argued that C.S.’s injuries were not foreseeable, asserting that M.C.’s punch was a spontaneous, intentional act that it could not have possibly prevented. Evangel asserts that the Slacks are unable to show negligent supervision, because they must first show: (1) that there was a failure to adequately supervise the safety of the students; (2) proof of negligence in providing supervision; and (3) proof of a causal connection between the lack of supervision and the accident. Evangel stated that it was not obligated to maintain constant surveillance of students.
Regarding the Slacks contention that M.C. had a propensity for violent actions, Evangel stated that M.C.’s disciplinary record shows an off-the-field fight with another student which occurred when he was in the seventh grade. Additionally, M.C. engaged in two infractions for “making noises in the classroom” and horse playing with a fellow student. As a result, Evangel indicated that none of the infractions raised by the plaintiffs established M.C.’s alleged propensity for violence.
Given the testimony of the aforementioned individuals, the trial court granted Evangel’s motion for summary judgment. In doing so, the trial court stated: “This is on a football field, a contact sport. Depositions of individuals indicate the students were taught not to react in such a manner. Just because you tell a child not to do something, doesn’t mean he’s going to listen and not do it.”
On appeal, the court supported the trial court’s summary judgment in Evangel’s favor while also dismissing with prejudice the Slack’s claims for a couple of reasons. First, the case involved a 17-year-old student-athlete who had been instructed not to retaliate to other players’ actions. However, in the heat of the moment the 17-year-old chose to act in a way that was contrary to what he had been taught in school. Secondly, the Slacks failed to indicate what else Evangel could have done to prevent M.C. from hitting C.S. The court further explained that since coaches could not be on the playing field, M.C.’s actions were spontaneous and could not have been prevented. The issues addressed by this court are explained in greater detail in the following sections.
Negligence
Negligence is an unintentional tort that considers whether there were acts of omission or commission that resulted in the harm to another person (Miller & Schoepfer, 2017). The commission of an act is one in which that a prudent person would not have done. If a coach instructs a player to react in such a way (i.e., punching another player in the face) that is outside of the rules of conduct for the sport, it would be considered an act of commission. Conversely, the omission of an act is one that a coach forgets or chooses not to instruct a player how to appropriately react (i.e., does not tell the player not to punch another player). Additionally, the duty of the defendant is often more restricted when negligence is comprised of an act of omission instead of an act of commission (McCloskey v. Mueller, 2012). In this case, the Slack’s, as the plaintiffs, appeared to use the negligence due to an act of omission by contending that neither the coaches nor the principal effectively upheld their duty by not effectively training their student-athletes to refrain from “throwing punches.” However, the court in this case found against the plaintiffs for such a contention.
Elements of Negligence
To establish negligence, the Slacks, as the plaintiffs, also needed to prove the following four elements: duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages. Regarding duty owed, a school, through its employees which includes coaches, owes a duty of reasonable supervision over students (La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2320). However, the court in Wallmuth v. Rapides Parish School Board (2002) stated that:
A coach or teacher has the duty to those under his or her charge to recognize and exercise his or her specific responsibilities under the circumstances to protect them from foreseeable harm from the conduct of things or persons under that coach’s or teacher’s supervision. A teacher or coach, however, is not the insurer of the safety of students in all circumstances and is not held to the impossible standard of exercising constant supervision over each student involved in a group activity (p. 921).
Using this logic, the court in Slack v. Copeland ruled in favor of the defendants by indicating that the continuous student supervision is not likely nor is it mandated for teachers and coaches, as school representatives, to fulfill their duty for adequate supervision.
The second element of negligence is breach of duty. Under negligence law, if an individual is found to owe a duty of care to others, then that individual must conduct himself or herself in a manner to avoid being the reason for the injury to the others (Miller & Schoepfer, 2017). The question is how a “reasonable person” would act under the same or similar circumstances. “A person who acts carelessly-unreasonably, without due care, breaches the duty of care, and such conduct is characterized as ‘negligent’” (Owen, 2006 p. 1677). Resultingly, the court in Slack v. Copeland found that Evangel coaches and administration did not breach their duty because they instructed the players to not react by throwing a punch.
The third element of proving negligence is proximate cause. “Proximate cause assumes the existence of actual causation and inquiries into whether the relationship between the wrong and harm was sufficiently close—whether the causal link was proximate rather than remote” (Owen, 2006 p. 1674). As it applies to this case, proximate cause is the alleged insufficient supervision by the coaches as the primary reason for the harm (Boston v. Jackson Parish School Board, 2016). Since the court found that the Evangel coaches and administrators did not breach their duty, proximate cause did not exist.
The final element of negligence is damage. Damage in this case referred to the Evangel player (M.C.) punching the Airline player (C.S.) hard enough to break C.S.’s jaw in two places. As a result of the action, C.S. had to have his jaw surgically wired shut for about one month. However, the court ruled that the damage incurred by C.S. was not the result of inappropriate instruction nor supervision from the coaches, so the plaintiffs’ case was dismissed.
References
Boston v. Jackson Parish School Board, 50,988 (La. App. 2 Cir. 11/16/16, 210 So. 3d 399).
McCloskey v. Mueller, 446 F.3d 262, 268 (1st Cir. 2012).
Miller, J. J., & Schoepfer, K. (2017). Legal aspects of sports. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Owen, D.G. (2006). The five elements of negligence. Hofstra Law Review, 35(4), 1671–1686.
Slack v. Copeland, 2022 La. App. LEXIS 1116, 54,591 (La.App. 2 Cir. 07/13/22).
Wallmuth v. Rapides Parish School Board, 01-1779 (La. 4/3/02), 813 So. 2d 341.
