By Stephanie Barnes
Walton v. Premier Soccer Club (2025)is a case chock-full of accusations, bad judgment, and multiple appeals, but in the end, the only thing that matters is the law. Sydney Walton, age 14, was a member of the Premier Soccer Team, which practiced at the Northeast Regional Recreation Center (the NEFFC), located in Parkville, Maryland, and owned by Baltimore County (Kozlowski, 2025). On December 13, 2017, during a drill exercise, Sydney collided with another player and fell into the wooden wall that marks the field’s boundary, resulting in a concussion. Although her injuries were immediately addressed, Sydney was unable to continue playing soccer and claimed to have sustained permanent injuries. In December 2019, the Walton family filed an instant lawsuit claiming negligence against Premier.
In any case of negligence, four key elements must be established: duty, breach, cause, and harm. The most crucial element is proving that the loss or injury is directly connected to the defendant’s breach of duty (Dygert, 2024). This is known as the proximate cause. In simpler terms, the injury would not have happened without the defendant’s negligent actions.
The Walton family’s initial negligence claim was that the Premier team allowed Sydney to practice on an unlit field (Dygert, 2024). However, the crux of this case occurred during summary judgment motions, when the plaintiffs claimed that Premier violated the state’s sports concussion awareness policy. According to Section 14-501 of the Maryland Health General Statute, all youth sports programs are required to provide information on concussions and cardiac arrest to coaches, youth athletes, and their parents or guardians. Additionally, these programs must establish a protocol for concussion management in the state of Maryland (Dygert, 2024).
It should be noted that in Maryland, the “Statute or Ordinance Rule” states that where there is a law or regulation meant to protect a certain group of people that includes the person who was harmed (e.g., the plaintiff), and if the injury is the kind that the law or regulation was meant to prevent, then breaking that law or regulation is considered evidence of negligence (Dygert, 2024). Nevertheless, the statute or ordinance rule violation can satisfy the duty and breach elements, but the plaintiff still must prove that the statutory violations were the actual cause of the injury, which, in this case, it has not.
Head Coach Lucio Gonzaga was legally required to inform each athlete and one parent or guardian about the MSDE concussion information (Kozlowski, 2024). His failure to do so demonstrates a breach of duty and a lack of professionalism. However, the District Court noted that “negligence is not actionable unless it is a proximate cause of the harm alleged” (Dygert, 2024, p. 1). The day before the trial, the court granted partial summary judgement to Premier, noting that the Walton family could not pursue a claim of negligence based on the concussion rules not being distributed because there was no evidence that the failure to do so caused Sydney’s injuries (i.e., there was no proximate cause), and the the plaintiff was not allowed to present any evidence referring to the statute or its implementing regulations before the jury (Walton v. Premier, 2024). Without the claim of negligence based on a violation of a statute or ordinance, the original inadequate lighting negligence theory was disputed, and the jury quickly returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
The Walton family appealed, alleging that Pemier violated Maryland’s general health code section on youth concussions (Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, 2024). Interestingly, the plaintiffs did not make pertinent concussion information part of the court record; however, the court indicated that its decision would have remained the same regardless. Moreover, the Court of Appeals reminded the Walton family that whether the court had seen the concussion information or the family felt slighted by the defendant’s lack of effort to distribute the concussion information, the plaintiff still needed to prove that the statutory violation was the cause of their daughter’s injury. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the family would have acted differently had they initially received and understood the concussion information. The Court of Appeals ruled that “the trial court did not err by granting the motion in limine”(a pretrial motion that asks the court to decide whether to allow or disallow certain evidence or arguments in a trial and declining to give a jury instructions on the statute or ordinance rule; Walton v. Premier, 2024, p. 28).
Not one to back down, the Walton family petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari (a legal document used to request a higher court to review a case decided by a lower court), and the courts once again examined the concept of proximate cause in this negligence case (Walton v. Premier, 2025). The Supreme Court explained that while violating a statute or ordinance can serve as evidence of negligence, the plaintiff must, as noted by both lower courts, still demonstrate proximate cause to support their negligence claim.
Unsurprisingly, in a 6-1 opinion, the Maryland Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions, ruling in favor of the defendants. The Court confirmed the lower court’s stance, determining that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the concussion sustained by Sydney was attributable to any alleged violation of State law or local ordinance. Maryland Supreme Court Justice Steven Gould expressed his dissatisfaction, writing, “Because the statute itself assumes that concussions may occur despite compliance, it would be illogical to permit a jury to speculate that compliance would have prevented Sydney’s specific injuries” (Konieczny, 2025). In his concluding remarks, Justice Gould pointed out that the Waltons’ failure to present any evidence that the alleged violations of HG § 14-501 played any part in Syndey’s injuries were “not by accident” (Walton v. Premier, 202, p. 18) as the family persistently “maintained that their burden for proximate cause was nothing more than satisfying the two conditions of the proximate cause sentence” (p. 18). Justice Gould believed the Waltons to have built their argument on “speculative assumptions” ( p. 21) and firmly stated that “it would be illogical (his second use of the word) to permit a jury to speculate that compliance would have prevented Sydney’s specific injuries” (p. 23).
Although Premier was not found negligent, it showed, at the very least, poor judgment and less-than-ethical behavior. Premier did not have a permit to practice at the NERRC but rather “used” the permit from St. Ursula Soccer to gain entrance into the facility (Walton v. Premier, 2024). Premier’s team representative, Mrs. Delores DeCarlo, “probably knowingly” (p. 11) avoided obtaining the required permit. She also directed the team not to wear their Premier uniforms and, if asked, to respond dishonestly and say they were there with the St. Ursula team.
The Waltons, on the other hand, were seemingly convinced that if they repeated the same argument to all three courts, their flawed reasoning would suddenly be understood. While persistence and hope are critical for achieving success, presenting the same argument in the same way to three distinct courts may not be the most effective strategy for obtaining a favorable outcome. The Waltons wanted someone to blame for their daughter’s injury, but they pointed the finger at the wrong defendant for the wrong reason. Perhaps if they began their legal analysis with proximate cause, they would assured themselves a chance of success in court.
Stephanie Barnes is a doctoral student in Sport Management at Troy University. She is a professional swimming coach and holds two Master’s degrees: one in Sport Management from Liberty University (2024) and another in Exercise Science from Auburn University (2003). She recently presented her thesis at the 2025 COSMA Conference in Las Vegas.
References
Dygert, T. (2024, July 9). FSB wins appeal on statute or ordinance rule. Ferguson, Schetelich, Ballew, P.A. https://fsb-law.com/litigation/fsb-wins-appeal-on-statute-or-ordinance-rule/
Konieczny, R. (2025, April 29). Md high court rules for soccer club, Baltimore County in concussion case. Maryland Daily Record. https://thedailyrecord.com/2025/04/28/maryland-soccer-concussion-lawsuit-decisionmd-supreme-court-finds-youth-soccer-team-baltimore-co-employees-not-liable-in-concussion-injury/
Kozlowski, J. C. (2024, May 23). Youth sports concussion awareness policy violation. Law Review: Parks & Recreation. https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2024/june/youth-sports-concussion-awareness-policy-violation/
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. (2024, March 25). Soccer team violates state law by failing to provide concussion materials to family, but is not liable for causing player’s concussion. https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/soccer-team-violates-state-law-by-failing-to-provide-concussion-materials-to-family-but-is-not-liable-for-causing-players-concussion/
Walton v. Premier Soccer Club, Inc., No. C-03-CV-19-004228 (March 1, 2024)
Walton v. Premier Soccer Club, Inc., No. C-03-CV-19-004228 (April 24, 2025)
