Anyone who enjoys watching sports can describe the audible groan heard amongst the crowd when a player is injured during a game. Whether the players are recreational level athletes, high school athletes, or professional athletes; injuries are certainly commonplace in most sports. However, some athletes have decided to seek compensation for their injuries from other players and coaches, which begs the question – who is responsible? This question was recently highlighted by national news networks when an NFL player for the Cleveland Browns and a player for the Pittsburgh Steelers had a physical altercation during a game, which resulted in the Browns player striking the Steelers player over the head with a helmet.
The most cited case with respect to negligence in sports is Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., wherein a player sued another player for injuries caused during an NFL game. In that case, an angry and emotional player struck a blow to the back of an opposing player’s head. The injured player sued under theories of negligence and reckless misconduct. In 1979, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that even if an opposing player breaches a duty owed by striking another player, the football player assumed the risk of such an injury due to the level of violence and the frequency of emotional outbursts in the NFL.
With respect to Arizona, in 1999 a recreational softball player was injured when an opposing player stepped on his leg during a game. As a result, the injured player initiated a negligence action against the opposing player in a case titled Estes v. Tripson. In that case, the Court held that the opposing player did nothing to “exacerbate the inherent risks” that a softball player faces when he plays the game and, therefore, was not liable for negligence. A common theme across these cases is the acknowledgement that there is some degree of assumption of risk amongst those who engage in athletics.
What about a situation where a player is injured due to negligently maintained property? In 2000, an Arizona court addressed that issue in Benjamin v. Gear Roller Hockey Equipment, Inc.. In that case, the Plaintiff was an experienced roller-blader who tripped and fell during a roller hockey match due to an uneven skating floor at a roller hockey rink. The Plaintiff alleged that the roller rink negligently maintained their skating floor and was therefore liable for his injuries. The roller rink argued that the Plaintiff had signed a waiver and release of liability agreement prior to participating the hockey league. Therefore, the rink argued there was no basis for which he could sue the rink for negligence. The Court agreed with the roller rink and held that the Plaintiff was familiar with the risks of roller hockey, including the fact that there would be problems with the skating surface which could cause an accident, and yet he still chose to sign the liability release. The Plaintiff was also a lawyer who understood the meaning of the term negligence, so he could not testify that he did not understand what rights he had waived when he signed the waiver and release of liability agreement. A different result was reached in 2005 when the Arizona Supreme Court held in Phelps v. Firebird Raceway, Inc. that summary judgment is not appropriate, even if there is a signed waiver, because the Arizona Constitution provides that assumption of risk is "in all cases whatsoever" and "at all times” a question of fact for the jury.
More recently, a high school baseball coach in New Jersey was sued by a player who was injured after the coach instructed him to slide into third base during a game. The player’s family sued the coach for negligence and alleged that he gave the player reckless advice which caused him injury. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the coach, but the Court of Appeals reversed, thus allowing the case to proceed to a jury trial. The jury ultimately decided that the coach was not liable for the player’s injuries because they did not believe the coach acted recklessly. However, the lawsuit lasted over seven years and cost over $75,000.00 to defend – a hefty price tag for a coach simply telling a player to slide during a baseball game.
It is important to note that while each of these cases had an end which was favorable to their respective defendants, that does not minimize the fact that these suits are filed and cost a considerable amount to defend. There are also many scenarios where the cause of injury is so far outside the known risks associated with the sport that the defendant cannot avoid liability by arguing the other player assumed the risk of injury.
The attorneys at Thomas Rubin & Kelley PC have extensive experience handling negligence and premises liability cases. Please feel free to contact us if you need assistance with any of your Arizona claims.