By Gary Chester, Senior Writer
The National Weather Service generally issues heat advisories when the heat index—a combination of temperature and humidity—reaches 100-105 degrees Fahrenheit. A heat advisory is a warning to limit outdoor activity, hydrate, and stay in cool environments. There is no exception for scholastic sports.
On July 21, 2017, 16-year-old Patrick Clancy participated in an optional off-season conditioning session for the boys soccer team at Monticello High School (MHS) in Albemarle County, Virginia. Matthew Pearman, the school’s athletic director, determined that it was safe to start the session at 8 a.m., two hours before a heat advisory went into effect.
Stuart Pierson, the team’s head coach, conducted the session on a field with no shade. He did not provide the players with water. Clancy collapsed later that day and was diagnosed with “exertional heat stroke.” In Clancy v. Pearman, No. 0383-25-2 (Va. App. April 21, 2026), the teen alleged permanent injuries due to the gross negligence of Pearman and Pierson. The trial court held that the plaintiff had assumed the risk of heat stroke as a matter of law and granted summary judgment to the defendants. Clancy appealed.
Did the 16-Year-Old Plaintiff Assume the Risk of Heat Stroke?
The primary issue in the appeal was whether Clancy voluntarily took part in the training session with the knowledge that the extreme heat presented a health risk. The voluntary soccer activity ended when the heat advisory started, but the plaintiff and others were still on the field removing equipment after the heat advisory began. Under Virginia law, whether one assumes the risk of an injury from a known danger is a question for the jury “unless reasonable minds could not differ on the issue.”
Clancy argued that the trial court erred in finding that he assumed the risk of heat-related injury because the court did not consider whether he assumed an additional risk: that Pierson would violate the appropriate standard of care imposed on a coach. Pierson allegedly failed to: (1) accurately measure the temperature on the athletic field; (2) provide cool water or shade; and (3) monitor the players for “the risk of exertional heat injury.”
A three-judge appellate panel reversed the trial court’s ruling because assumption of risk does not apply where the defendants’ negligence “creates risks that the plaintiff is not aware of and that are beyond the risks ordinarily expected from participating in the activity.” In their defense, Pearman and Pierson argued that the players had access to a nearby building with water fountains and air conditioning. But the court found a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants’ alleged gross negligence exacerbated or enhanced the safety risks inherent in a conditioning session conducted during a heat wave.
An additional issue was whether Clancy voluntarily participated in the training session. To rebut the defendants’ argument that the event was optional, Clancy said that he felt pressure to attend the session, fearing he “would be less likely to play” during the regular season and would be judged by Pierson if he asked to take a break or decided to leave. Clancy asserted that the coach showed some “attitude” when he mentioned sunburn during the activity.
Was the Case Barred by Contributory Negligence?
In addition to dismissing the complaint based on assumption of risk, the trial court ruled that Clancy’s own negligence barred his recovery. The trial judge found that Clancy contributed to his own injuries by failing to take the necessary actions to protect himself, because at some point student athletes “have to say, I am not feeling well, I’m feeling sick.”
The appeals court noted that minors aged fourteen and older are presumed capable of understanding and avoiding danger absent proof of an inability to do so. However, the court recognized that “the conduct of minors over fourteen is not measured by adult standards but, instead, by the ‘degree of care [that] children of the same age, experience, discretion[,] and knowledge would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.’”
Clancy drank sixty ounces of water before the training session and brought with him and consumed more water during the session. He and his mother thought the coach would move the session indoors if it became too hot. Clancy also suggested to the court that confusion and irrational behavior are symptomatic of exertional heat injury. In his interrogatory answers, Clancy stated that John Jardine, an emergency room physician, would testify that confusion and disorientation are symptoms of exertional heat stroke.
The Court of Appeals ruled that objectively reasonable minds could disagree about whether Clancy was negligent in failing to remove himself from play after he began to feel ill. The judges also indicated that Clancy’s alleged failure to remove himself from the activity was related more to a failure to mitigate damages than to contribution. A failure to mitigate damages does not necessarily bar all claims.
The court explained Virginia law as follows: “If the plaintiff’s injury occurs because [he] failed to exercise reasonable care contemporaneously or concurrently with the negligent act of the defendant, [that failure] constitutes contributory negligence that bars [his] recovery.” [By contrast, a] “plaintiff’s duty to mitigate damages … arises … after [a] defendant’s tortious conduct.”
The opinion continued: “If the jury were to find that Pearman and Pierson were grossly negligent for holding the session outside in the heat and that Clancy was not at fault for deciding to attend the conditioning session in the first place but was at fault for not resting when he began to feel ill, the jury might properly conclude, at most, that Clancy failed to mitigate his damages.”
The defendants did succeed with one argument. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that a portion of the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert athletic trainer, Dr. Casa, was inadmissible because he is not a medical doctor. The court stated that under Virginia law “only a medical doctor [is qualified to] testify as to the causation of a human physical injury.” (Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 596, 602 (2007)).
Even though Dr. Casa earned a Ph.D. in exercise physiology and serves as a professor of kinesiology at the University of Connecticut, he does not possess a medical degree. The court further stated: “Having a Ph.D. in a potentially relevant field of study does not render one qualified to give a medical diagnosis and opinion about causation.”
The Court Recognized the Disparity Between the Parties
A major takeaway from this decision is the Virginia Court of Appeals’ recognition of the potential pressure on scholastic athletes to participate in team events. In evaluating the assumption of risk defense, some courts ignore the potential ramifications of a student athlete refusing to participate in an activity; they consider whether one knew and appreciated the risk but not whether they took the risk voluntarily. There are judges who do not appreciate the authority that coaches have over high school students. It is far different from professional athletes who have a union to support them.
Assumption of risk requires voluntary exposure to a known risk. There are times when minors believe that if they skip a dangerous activity, the coach will remove them from the team or not give them playing time. Or young students in grade school might believe it would be insubordinate to disobey any directives from coaches or teachers. If so, then participation in an unsafe activity might not be voluntary. This court astutely recognized that the issue is for a jury to determine.
Finally, student athletes in Virginia and elsewhere would be well served if high school sports associations adopted a concise but informative risk management document circulated by the Idaho High School Activities Association. The IHSAA’s Fourteen Duties for Athletic Administrators and Athletic Coaches Related to Negligence Litigation discusses in detail the legal obligation of coaches to properly supervise, assess, instruct, and condition student athletes. (A copy may be found here: https://idhsaa.org/asset/Athletic%20Directors/14%20Legal%20Duties%20Admin-Coaches%20copy.pdf.)
Spoiler alert: The “Duty to Maintain Safe Playing Conditions” section states in part… “Athletes should not be subjected to intense or prolonged conditioning during periods of extreme heat and humidity…”
