By Matt Lovett and George Schaefer
The Popularity and Growth of Sport Camps
University-sponsored sport camps have become big business. Over the last two decades, the number of these camps has increased dramatically, especially for young teens (Zenkel, 2010). There are camps for almost every sport. Most universities and junior colleges now host these camps that last from several days to several weeks and provide day and overnight options.
There are several reasons for this growing trend. First, the parents of today’s young athletes are willing to invest significant financial resources into their child’s athletic development. Most instructional sport day camps cost in the low hundreds. However, many of the longer, overnight camps can cost a thousand dollars or more. But some parents feel more personal instruction from high-level, competent coaches is worth the money.
Other possible reasons sport camps have grown include the belief that sport-specialization demands year-round training, their children get to practice against elite-level competition, and young athletes get to be seen by possible future recruiters. In addition, their high school/recreation league coaches often promote these camps.
But maybe the most important reason for this growth is the financial incentive to the coaches at the universities. Hundreds of colleges and universities either run their own summer programs or lease their facilities to private operators, such as coaches (Zenkel, 2010). Hosting several camps per summer can be a very lucrative income stream for head and assistant coaches, many of who may need this extra summer income, especially at smaller universities. The extra benefit to the coaches is that they get instructional time with potential recruits during periods when they may otherwise be banned from contact.
There seems to be a common structure to these sport camps. Coaches form either a sole proprietorship or LLC in their name. They then put their names on the camp—Paul Mainieri’s LSU Baseball Camp or Nick Saban Football Camp—and market to high school or youth sport coaches, athletes, and parents. The coach then leases the university facilities from the university and hosts the camps, sometimes using university dorms and dining facilities. The university limits exposure through the lease agreement and the coach’s business entity keeps the profits. It seems like a win-win, and most of the time it is just that. The university and coaches make money while providing sound instruction to young athletes. In rare instances, however, this relationship can become convoluted.
Sport Camp Injury at Virginia Tech
In June 2009, Mr. Seth Greenberg, former Virginia Tech (VT) men’s head basketball coach, held the Seth Greenberg Team Camp on the VT campus. At least part of the camp was held in VT’s War Memorial Gym, which is home to VT’s recreational sports. The building was completed in 1926, renovated in 1972, and remodeled in 1992.
During a simulated game, Mr. Schuler, a 15-year old camper, slid (or was pushed) on the floor under one of the baskets and hit his head on the wall. The cinderblock wall was 33-inches from the baseline and had padding that stopped 14-inches from the ground. The cinderblock wall between the padding and the floor is where the athlete made contact with the wall. The camper sustained head and brain injuries from the accident.
Seth Greenberg and Virginia Tech Named in Suit
In March 2011, a $2.5 million lawsuit was filed against Mr. Greenberg, Greenberg Basketball Camps (his business entity) and the Commonwealth of Virginia (VT). The suit cited many issues with Mr. Greenberg, the camp staff, and the VT facilities. These issues included facility violations as well as incompetent and unqualified officials.
The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. Would, however, VT—the lessor of the facilities—been liable for the injuries sustained by Mr. Schuler had the case gone to court? No one can say for sure. Nevertheless, the remainder of this article will examine the legal issues of the case as they pertain to VT as the lessor of the facility in which the injury was sustained.
Important Issues Raised in the Case
ISSUE #1: Gross Negligence. The suit claimed VT was grossly negligent. Whereas negligent acts fall below the required standard of care and cause a breach of duty to protect people from unreasonable risks and injury, gross negligence is the intentional failure to perform a duty in reckless disregard of the consequences as affecting the life or property of others (Cotton & Wolohan, 2013). The lawsuit asserted that VT and the War Memorial Gym staff were negligent because they did not foresee and discover obvious dangers related to the basketball court buffer zone and lack of padding where the injury occurred, hazards prudent professionals should have.
The suit charged VT with gross negligence on two counts. First, the buffer zone failed both the NCAA and National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) published standards. The 33-inch buffer zone was well below the minimum standard of 6 feet. In these instances, it is suggested that floors be re-striped and shortened to extend the buffer zones.
In addition, published standards require that padding along the walls behind the baseline extend down to at least 4 inches above the floor (Seidler, 2011). The 14-inch gap between the floor and the bottom of the padding in War Memorial Gym did not meet this standard either.
Based on the buffer zone and lack of padding, it seems VT was negligent because they did not address these known risks.
ISSUE #2: VT as Lessor. VT released a statement that acknowledged university-employed athletic coaches held camps in their facilities but that they did so on their own and that the university itself did not conduct the camps. Leasing a facility does transfer some risk. However, when injuries occur it is common for the facility owners to be named in the suit as a defendant. In these cases, the extent of lessor liability depends on the classification of the injury.
The extent of lessor liability is determined by whether the injury was activity-related or premise-related. Activity-related injuries are generally the responsibility of the lessee, in this case Mr. Greenberg. In contrast, premise-related injuries may rest on both the lessee and the facility owner. Often, the lessee is responsible for maintenance issues and the lessor is responsible for structural issues. The injury occurred in part because the buffer zone was too short, which would be considered a structural issue, making the injury to be premise-related. Hence, VT would be at least partially liable for the injury.
ISSUE #3: Premise Liability. Premise liability law hinges on the type of relationship that exists between the facility owner/landowner and the individuals entering the premises. The highest standard of care is owed to a business invitee, or one who has been invited to a facility to provide some sort of economic incentive to the facility owner (Cotton & Wolohan, 2013). The facility owner owes them this high-level of protection because they are in the best position to know and understand the risks—or discover risks—that threaten the invitees. Mr. Schuler was an obvious business invitee. He was invited onto the VT campus and VT (and Mr. Greenberg) received economic benefits because of his attendance. Mr. Schuler’s lawyer released the following statement that specifically addressed premise liability: “If children are under the care of Virginia Tech, Seth Greenberg, or the basketball camp, they owe them the utmost care under Virginia Law.”
ISSUE #4: Five Legal Obligations. Todd Seidler, a professor and leading authority on premise liability and the recreational manager’s duties owed to participants/invitees, suggested facility and land managers are obligated to provide patron safety in the following five ways:
(1) keep the premises in safe repair, (2) inspect to discover obvious and hidden dangers, (3) remove hazards/warn others of hazards, (4) anticipate foreseeable uses and take reasonable precautions to protect, and (5) conduct operations with reasonable care for the safety of all
With regard to VT and their responsibility for War Memorial Gym, it would be difficult to argue that VT lived up to the last four legal obligations listed above.
Conclusion
It seems fairly evident that VT was negligent. First, if the facility was substandard in terms of the buffer zone violation, a lease agreement would not exempt them from the injury unless the contract specifically addressed hazards that could arise from this situation. It also appears that the injury was both activity-related and premise-related. A prudent professional should have foreseen the danger through inspections and taken necessary precautions to alleviate or reduce these risks. In addition, lack of padding was very discoverable through routine inspections and increased the likelihood of injury. Finally, VT seems to have failed on at least four of the five legal obligations.
It is important for universities to understand that even though they are leasing their facilities and limiting their exposure they are not eliminating their exposure altogether. They still have legal duties to inspect for and discover both obvious and possible risks that can cause injury and deal with each of those risks accordingly.
Cotton, Doyce & Wolohan, John T. (2013). Law for Recreation and Sport Managers, 6th. Kendall Hunt Publishing: Dubuque, IA.
Seidler, Todd. (2011). Basketball buffer zones: Accidents waiting to Happen. High School Today. October 2011, 22-23.
Zenkel, Daniel. (2010). Recent and emerging camp industry trends. Retrieved from www.thecampprofessionals.com
Dr. Matt Lovett is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at the University of Louisiana at Monroe. Dr. George Schaefer is an Associate Professor of Sport Management at Auburn-Montgomery.
