A Connecticut state court has granted summary judgment to a soccer association and a youth soccer league in case where they were sued by a soccer player who suffered an injury at the hands of an opposing team’s player when an altercation between their two teams broke out.
In so ruling, the court found, first, that the plaintiff failed to advise the referee that his opponent was violent and, second, that the referees were not controlled by the defendants.
The incident in question occurred on June 20, 2004. An altercation broke out between the teams, and the opposing soccer player “suddenly and without any warning, negligently and carelessly assaulted and severely injured the plaintiff,” according to the court.
A little over a year later, plaintiff Jay Sullivan sued the opposing soccer player for intentional, negligence and excessive self-defense. He also alleged negligence against the Connecticut Junior Soccer Association, Inc. (CJSA) and the Stamford Youth Soccer League, Inc. (SYSL).
The association and league ultimately moved for summary judgment, leading to the instant opinion. Specifically, the defendants claimed they cannot be “vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the referees because the referees were independent contractors, and, as such, the defendants had no duty to train them.”
The court noted that the plaintiff’s claims “are premised on his allegations that they failed to provide adequate personnel to monitor and control the game, failed to adequately train its personnel to deal with altercations and failed to provide safeguards to ensure altercations would not occur. Although the plaintiff alleges that he alerted one of the referees that (his opponent) was violent, in his deposition, the plaintiff conceded that during the game and before (the opponent) allegedly assaulted him, the plaintiff did not tell the referee that the referee should take certain steps to control the game. His testimony is, therefore, inconsistent with his allegation in count four that he ‘verbally expressed concern to the referee that (the opponent) was violent and likely to cause harm to the plaintiff or another party.
“The analysis of the issue of proximate cause in Vaillancourt v. Latifi, 81 Conn.App. 541, 840 A.2d 1209 (2004) leads to the conclusion that the plaintiff in this case has also failed to allege conduct or omissions by the defendants that were the proximate cause of his injuries or to provide evidence thereof. Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on counts four and five as a matter of law.”
The court next turned to the defendants’ argument that they cannot be vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of the referees or coaches because the referees were independent contractors, and, as such, the defendants had no duty to train them.
Such a finding turns whether the defendants have met their burden of establishing that no factual issues remain as to whether the referees were acting as their agents.
“The evidence demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue regarding whether the referees were agents of either of the defendants,” wrote the court. “‘[T]he existence of the genuine issue of material fact must be demonstrated by counteraffidavits and concrete evidence.’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Little v. Yale University, 92 Conn.App. 232, 235, 884 A.2d 427 (2005), cert. denied, 276 Conn. 936, 891 A.2d 1 (2006). The plaintiff has offered no such concrete evidence.”
Jay Sullivan v. Luis F. Quiceno et al; Super. Ct. Conn., New Haven Dist.; No.CV054003173S; LEXIS 2591; 10/5/07
