Andrea Wilson v O’Gorman High School and Others (2008) H&FLR 2014-50
United States District Court (District of South Dakota)
26 June 2008
Coram: Schreier CJ
Catchwords: South Dakota – gymnastics – coaching – injury – standard of care – assumption of risk
Facts: The plaintiff was a gymnast and took part in high school gymnastics with the defendant. On 22 January 2003 as part of school gymnastic training she was practicing a manoeuvre known as the “reverse hecht” under the supervision of a coach supplied by the school. She had attempted the manoeuvre about thirty times that day. On her final attempt she released the bar late and fell, suffering severe injuries.
The plaintiff brought proceedings in negligence against the school and coach, alleging (inter alia) that the coach had attempted to instruct her in the reverse hecht despite not being trained to do so, that he had failed to prevent her practicing the manoeuvre as many as thirty times, and that he had not moved her to a foam pit where she could more safely practice the manoeuvre despite her multiple failed attempts.
The defendants disputed the applicable standard of care and also asserted voluntary assumption of risk and contributory negligence. The defendants sought summary dismissal of her claim.
Held: Refusing the application for summary judgment –
1. To establish negligence a plaintiff must establish that there was a duty on the part of defendants, that they failed to meet that duty, and that this failure resulted in injury*.
Kuehl v Horner (JW) Lumber Co, 678 NW.2d 809 (SD 2004), followed.
2. The standard of care is not reduced for people engaged in sporting activities, like coaches or sports administrators. The general standard of care applies.
Kahn v East Side Union High School District, 75 P.3d 30 (Cal. 2003), not followed.
Gasper v Freidel, 450 NW.2d 226 (SD 1990), distinguished.
Rantapaa v Black Hills Chair Lift Co, 633 NW.2d 196 (SD 2001), considered.
3. Application of the general negligence standard still allows the defendant to allege assumption of risk. To succeed on this basis a defendant must show that the plaintiff had actual or constructive knowledge of the risk, appreciated its character, and voluntarily accepted the risk (having had the time, knowledge, and experience to make an intelligent choice). However, a plaintiff is not obliged to anticipate the negligent conduct of others.
The Court’s judgment is available here.
* The defendants did not dispute that they owed the plaintiff a duty of care.