School’s actions placed student at risk during batting practice |
On Board Online • February 25, 2013
By Pilar Sokol
It is well-established that school districts will not be held liable for injuries sustained by their student athletes as a result of assumed risks inherent in a competitive sport, particularly when students are properly equipped, well-trained, and play voluntarily. However, districts do have an obligation to exercise reasonable care to protect their athletes from injuries that may result from unassumed, concealed or unreasonable increased risks in such activities.
The proper application of this legal doctrine of assumption of risk was recently at issue in Weinberger v. Solomon Schechter School of Westchester. Although the case involved a private school, it offers caution for school districts. According to Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, the school’s actions enhanced the injured student’s risk of injury.
According to the Second Department’s decision, the student was struck in the face while pitching in a “rapid fire drill” batting practice of her school’s softball team that required a quick succession of pitches. The drill also required the pitcher to be closer to home plate than the pitching mound. The record in the case showed that the school’s athletic director had instructed the softball coaches to use a protective L-screen for pitchers during batting practices at a shorter distance to home plate than the mound. The screen was supposed to be free-standing but, instead, it was propped up between two benches. It fell down several times, including near the end of the practice when the student was pitching. When the student asked whether she should continue, the coach advised her to leave the L-screen on the ground. The student was injured after a batter hit a subsequent pitch.
After a jury returned a verdict in favor of the school, a lower court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the student had voluntarily assumed the risk of injury involved in the batting practice.
When the student appealed, the Second Department disagreed with the lower court. In its view, the faulty L-screen and the decreased distance between the student and the batter without the benefit of the L-screen at the direction of her coach “enhanced the risk of being struck by a line drive.” However, a new trial was needed on the factual issue of whether the student’s recovery of damages should have been limited by her conduct in impliedly assuming the risk of pitching closer to home plate without a functional L-screen.