Harsted v Prior Lake-Savage School District (2013) H&FLR 2014-51

Beverly Harsted (as Mother and Natural Guardian of Tiffany Harsted) v Prior Lake-Savage Independent School District 719 (2013) H&FLR 2014-51

Scott County District Court (Minnesota)

20 June 2013

Coram: Fahey J

Appearing for the Plaintiff: Martin Montilino
Appearing for the Defendants: Not represented

Catchwords: Minnesota – school sport – gymnastics – action by coach – back injury – damages – quantum

Facts: The 14 year old plaintiff (Tiffany Harsted) was a student at Prior Lake High School and part of its gymnastics team. During a gymnastics practice on 26 January 2011 she was lying on her stomach on the floor of a training venue with an icepack on her back. An assistant coach stepped on her back for reasons which were unclear. She experienced persistent pain after this incident which was eventually identified as a vertebral facet fracture (in addition to stress fractures which were attributed to repetitive trauma associated with gymnastics). The stress fractures recovered but the facet fracture did not fully heal. The evidence was that the plaintiff would continue to have back pain with activity. She was ultimately able to resume gymnastics.

The plaintiff sought compensation for her injury from the school. Damages were agreed with the operator of the school at $24,000.00 (inclusive of legal costs of $8,000.00). Application was made to the court for approval of an infant’s compromise.

Held: The Court’s records indicate that the compromise was approved, offering an insight into the damages considered appropriate for a blameless plaintiff with an injury of the type described.

Judgment

No written reasons are available. This report has been prepared based on the Court’s Register of Actions and the report prepared by Kaitlyn Egan in the Prior Lake American of 16 June 2013.

Wilson v O’Gorman High School (2008) H&FLR 2014-50

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

Appearing for the plaintiff: Steve Landon (of Cadwell Sanford Deibert & Garry LLP)
Appearing for the Defendants: Jim McMahon (of Murphy, Goldammer & Prendergast, LLP)

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.

Goepfert v Filler, 563 NW.2d 140 (SD 1997) and Ray v Downes, 576 NW.2d 896 (SD 1998), followed.

Judgment
The Court’s judgment is available here.
========================================================

* The defendants did not dispute that they owed the plaintiff a duty of care.