Coaches at all levels have traditionally assumed a special role in the lives of athletes and success of teams. In the past, winning coaches achieved results employing techniques that could legally be considered "wanton" or "grossly negligent" in any other context.
In 2015, because of a number of social and economic factors, the explosion of baseball participation from the T-ball to the professionals is at an all-time high. Baseball's popularity appears to be an extension of the growth of all sports.
On its face, the behavior of coaches today is more scrutinized than ever, and the big legal questions that surface are: Where does society draw the line between forging a winning program and negligent behavior? Or, when does a coach's behavior at any level of sport constitute negligence, and what standard should be applied?
In this article, the coach's liability for an athlete's injury or death while participating in any sport-related event will be examined. Specifically, the theory of negligence applied in baseball and other coaching contexts, including other theories of liability and legal defenses utilized by coaches when charged with negligence is addressed.
Lastly, examples taken from past court cases and hypothetical situations of unsafe coaching practices and child abuse will be presented to merge theory with application.
Coaching negligence: Case studies and application
Although the definition of negligence applied to sports participation varies from state to state, it has been established that intercollegiate, high school, voluntary organizations (i.e. youth leagues) and coaches are not responsible for the health and safety of athletes. Hence, they are not held strictly liable for injuries sustained by players involved in athletic participation.
The lynchpin of the negligence definition is that "athletes assume the inherent risks that are involved in the execution of sport skills." Hence, a batter incurring a facial injury from a pitched ball assumed or understood the risk of injury while batting might include injuries to the face. And the voluntary nature of participation in an activity allows the institutions, organizations and coaches to not be held responsible for injuries considered part of a sport.
Although athletes may assume risks inherent to baseball (usually via an expressed consent form), there are specific risks they are not expected to assume. Courts have determined a coach's duty is not to unnecessarily increase the risk of injury inherent in skill execution and must teach, drill and practically minimize the risk of injury to players under his/her supervision.
It is the violation of this legal precept that has significantly increased the number of baseball-related negligence lawsuits at all levels of the game. A Florida court decision has provided a more definitive understanding involving how liability may be imposed upon an institution, organization or coach.
In Leahy v. School Board, the court enunciated as follows: "The duty owed athletes takes the form of a giving adequate instruction in the activity, supplying proper equipment, making a reasonable selection or matching or matching of participants, providing non-negligent supervision of the particular contest (practice), and taking proper post-injury procedures to guard against aggravation of injuries."
An example of how the above ruling applies to the facial injury described previously will illustrate the application of the court's ruling. The late and knowledgeable major league hitting coach Charlie Lau promoted "rolling" toward the catcher on any pitch that was close to or might hit a batter.
Lau's rationale was that if the elements of an efficient swing were taught (i.e. front side stays in) and practiced, then rolling on a 90-plus mph pitch could be executed, and the probability of serious injuries or death from pitches contacting the heart and head areas could be reduced.
Lau's study of hitters revealed the likely first reaction of a batter unschooled in hitting to a pitch thrown at him was an extension of the body before moving to avoid contact with the ball. Hence, the valuable time lost in body extension could lead to an unwanted result. Thus, unless there was convincing evidence that a coaching staff had taught and routinely practiced and corrected hitting fundamentals as recommended by hitting experts, a case for negligence could be argued.
Kahn v. East Side Union High School District
Negligence and duty of care was further clarified in Kahn v. East Side Union High School District when the court ruled that a coach will breach his duty to a student-athlete if "the coach intentionally injures the student or engages in conduct that is reckless in the sense that it is 'totally outside the range of the ordinary activity in teaching or coaching the sport.'"
Most importantly, the court further stated that: "Coaches do not have a duty to eliminate all risk involved in sport, but rather have a duty not to increase the risk inherent to learning, practicing, or performing the sport." Often, institutions, organizations and coaches have been falsely led to believe they are totally immunized from all liability because of rules established by a national, regional or state organization.
Consider the National Federation of State High School Associations' (NFSHSA) sliding rule that states: "In high school baseball, a legal slide may be feet or head first."
According to long-time expert and advocate of child safety in athletics Dr. Michael B. Minix, the national high school sliding rule infers: "A player who slides head first won’t get penalized, ejected, suspended or any other penalty that an institution, organization or coach have the ability to impose, during and after the event (i.e. game or practice)." Minix's analysis also provides a more comprehensive understanding of negligence by stating that just because the head-first slide is legal does not mean the slide:
- is an unreasonable risk of injury to a player and potentially criminal in civil or criminal court;
- the duty of care owed to an athlete has been neglected; and
- the damage or injury occurring from a head-first slide was the result of a breach in the standard of care.
Minix's observations can also be understood by differentiating between administrative laws (NFSHSA's sliding rule) and civil and criminal laws. The latter (rules of law) always supersede rules of play authored by associations, sections, leagues, etc.
Regarding the "unreasonable standard risk of injury" standard, launching a head into a firmly planted leg by a catcher or an infielder in turning a double play can lead to serious injury, including full or partial body paralysis. Obviously, not teaching, practicing and executing a bent-leg slide in that situation presents an unreasonable risk of injury to which a player is not expected to assume.
However, to ameliorate this risk, it's not enough to simply point out the risks of launching one's head into a stationary object. Applying the duty of care precept implies a coaching staff has provided sufficient instruction, practice and corrective analysis in sliding head-first (i.e. returning to a base to avoid a pick or sliding at a base or home to avoid a tag) and has devoted an equal amount of time to mastering the bent-leg.
From a practical, safety and coaching perspective, the empirical evidence illustrates that in comparing the two slides, the head-first is likely to result in more serious upper body injuries and not demonstrated to be faster in reaching a base or home in comparison to a bent-leg. Hence, the bent-leg slide appears to be safest and most efficient to master, and the trend in all levels of baseball shows an increasing use of this slide.
Standard of care is associated with exposure of athletes to severe punishments (i.e. verbal abuse), overuse injuries (excessive pitch counts, not correcting improper techniques) and injury mismanagement (failure to provide and document an updated risk management program).
Several amateur baseball coaches in 2015 decry the "entitlement" trend, including the increasing number of parents interjecting themselves as representing the best interests of their children. The primary issue according to a number of amateur coaches is that parents can assume a role that is disruptive and distractive to program functioning.
In cases that have been adjudicated in court, child abuse is the category in which these cases are documented and increasingly involve emotional, verbal and psychological abuse. The literature abounds with examples of coaches leading their team to a nearby pasture and pointing out "the players' brains were similar to the grazing sheep's," acting self-centered and only interested in one's coaching record, and the use of vulgar, derogatory and intimidation language.
In one case (Newman v. Oberstellar), the coach believed the following dialogue was needed to motivate the football team: "Y'all f**king suck. All we've got on this team is a bunch of a**holes … and if any of y'all want to run home and tell your parents, I'll stand up on top of the Empire State Building and say you're goddamn right that's what I said."
A player filed a lawsuit claiming in part that the words of the coach caused him "severe emotional stress." The coach maintained that in the "aggressive and competitive" environment of high school football, it was necessary to use strong language to motivate students. The coach filed for summary judgment (request for dismissal) on the basis of immunity offered by the Texas Education Code (TEC) which stated:
"No professional employee of any school district within the state shall be personally liable for any act incident to or within the scope of the duties of his position of employment, and which act involves exercise of judgment or discretion on the part of the employees, except in circumstances where professional employees use excessive force in the discipline of students or negligence resulting in bodily injury to students."
Obstellar's summary petition was denied on the basis that even if immunity existed, it did not extend to certain acts that can conceivably be so egregious to be considered outside the normal execution of duties of an employee.
Hence, a coach's behavior — such as utilizing derogatory language, verbal, emotional and psychological abuse (i.e. bringing a team to grazing sheep and inferring its brain capacities were similar to the sheep's) — may render a coach or coaching staff liable if a court (jury or judge) agrees that such actions rise to a level that exceed normal behavior.
Conclusion
The increased litigiousness in all aspects of American society has not missed all levels of sport. Clearly, coaches under the "unnecessarily increasing the inherent risk" dicta can be held liable for player injuries, including death.
Critics argue that increased legal scrutiny can "chill" or not prompt coaches to seek maximal performance and effort from athletes. However, baseball players' increased performance levels (freshman success in four-year college programs) can be arguably attributed to the application of new knowledge by coaches, sports medicine professionals, nutritionists, training experts and informed parents.
Updated knowledge and currency in the application of technical executions, respect and reasonableness in interactions with players, and thorough knowledge of the 14 duties for athletic administrators and athletic coaches related to negligence litigation are the best preventive strategy to avoid frivolous lawsuits.
