The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg...
-
Upload
shawn-whitehead -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg...
![Page 1: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett
Linda Sharp, University of Northern ColoradoPeg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific
![Page 2: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The Problem
•Are California courts misinterpreting the important precedent of Knight v. Jewett in regard to the “no-duty” analysis in the sport/physical activity context?
No duty=primary assumption of risk for inherent risks of activity
![Page 3: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Knight v. Jewett (Cal. 1992)
Issue
What duty, if any, is owed to a coparticipant in an active sport?
![Page 4: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Facts of Knight v. Jewett
•Recreational touch FB game•Men and women playing•Female P injured by rough play of
coparticipant•Coparticipant stepped on P’s hand and
finger•P sued based on negligence
![Page 5: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Knight Holding by Cal. Supreme Court•The judgment of the Court of Appeal,
upholding the summary judgment entered by the trial court, is affirmed.
• The court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff's tort claim for negligence, holding that it was barred by the primary assumption of risk doctrine for ordinary, careless conduct during a sports activity.
![Page 6: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Knight rationale
•The question of the existence and scope of a defendant's duty of care is a legal question which depends on the nature of the sport or activity in question and on the parties' general relationship to the activity, and is an issue to be decided by the court, rather than the jury.
![Page 7: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
•Seminal case regarding duty of care owed by sports coparticipants▫Liability only for intentional misconduct or
reckless disregard▫Players assume the risk of dangers from
“vigorous participation”▫To impose a duty here would cause a basic
alteration of the sport
Knight rationale (cont)
![Page 8: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Knight rationale (cont)
•The overwhelming majority of the cases, both within and outside California, that have addressed the issue of coparticipant liability in such a sport, have concluded that it is improper to hold a sports participant liable to a coparticipant for ordinary careless conduct committed during the sport
![Page 9: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Knight rationale (cont)• In the heat of an active sporting event like baseball or
football, a participant's normal energetic conduct often includes accidentally careless behavior.
Vigorous participation in such sporting events likely would be chilled if legal liability were to be imposed on a participant on the basis of his or her ordinary careless conduct
• Even when a participant's conduct violates a rule of the game and may subject the violator to internal sanctions prescribed by the sport itself, imposition of legal liability for such conduct might well alter fundamentally the nature of the sport by deterring participants from vigorously engaging in activity
![Page 10: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Kahn v. East Side Union High School District, 75 P. 3d 30 (Cal. 2003)
•Should the rationale of the Knight case be extended to the realm of coaching and instruction to essentially immunize a coach or teacher from the consequences of his/her negligent behavior?
![Page 11: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Facts of the Kahn case
•14 year-old novice member of j.v. swim team
•Suffered a broken neck as she did a practice dive into a shallow racing pool
•Student had a fear of diving•Coach promised her she did not have to
dive at meets
![Page 12: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Facts of the Kahn case (cont)•On day of injury coach told student she
had to dive or not swim in relay race•Student sustained injury while practicing
dive from starting blocks with other team members
•Dives into racing pools carry significant risk of injury
•Fact issue as to type of diving instruction provided at practice
![Page 13: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
The Legal Claims
•Negligent instruction regarding diving•Negligent supervision•Negligence by coach in insisting student
dive despite fear, lack of expertise, previous promise that she would not have to dive
![Page 14: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Lower Court Holding
•Granted summary judgment for coach and school district
•Under doctrine of assumption of risk, no liability unless▫“elevated risks inherent in competitive
swimming” OR▫“had behaved recklessly”
![Page 15: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Court of Appeals’ Decision
•Affirmed summary judgment•Doctrine of primary assumption of risk
barred claim•Shallow-water diving is a danger that is
inherent in competitive swimming
![Page 16: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
California Supreme Court
•Reversed and remanded•Adopted the “reckless disregard”
standard for coach’s liability•Coach’s negligence considered to be
inherent risk of sport•Remand to consider whether coach acted
with “reckless disregard” in this case
![Page 17: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Kahn rationale•Question of duty depends on role of
defendant•Cases post-Knight held that instructor/coach
generally does not increase inherent risks of sport simply by urging student to strive to excel or to reach a new level of competence
•Court is concerned about “chilling effect” the imposition of a duty of care here would have on enterprise of teaching and learning
![Page 18: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Kahn Rationale (cont)•To recognize a duty of care here would
tend to alter nature of activity or chill vigorous participation▫Participants need instruction to compete▫Part of coaches’ role is to challenge or
“push” a student to advance ▫Do not want to inhibit adequate instruction
and learning
![Page 19: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Kahn Rationale (cont)
•In cases alleging sports instructor has required student to perform beyond capacity or without adequate instruction need to show:▫Intentional action OR▫Reckless action “totally outside the range
of the ordinary activity” involved in teaching or coaching the sport (p.43)
![Page 20: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Ohman v. Bd. of Educ. N.Y. 90 N.E.2d 474 (N.Y. 1949)•Parents do not send their children to
school to be returned to them maimed because of the absence of proper supervision or the abandonment of supervision. Id. at 476.
![Page 21: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Other cases adopting Kahn rationale•Schweichler v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist.
(App. Div. 2005)
▫HS student injured during wrestling practice▫Coach incorrectly positioned student as coach
demonstrated wrestling move▫Court used Kahn rationale▫A cause of action against a coach cannot be
based on mere negligence
![Page 22: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Other cases adopting Kahn rationale•Baltierra v. Corona-Norco Unified Sch.
Dist. (App. Div. 2006)▫HS FB player injured in weightlifting class▫Coach required players to do “one
repetition maximum squat lift”▫Player sustained serious back injuries▫To hold coach liable for injury here would
“inhibit HS FB by chilling vigorous participation in the activity”
▫Action barred under primary A/R
![Page 23: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
ROSTAI v. NESTE ENTERPRISES 138 CAL.APP.4TH 326 (2006)
Issue:
Does primary assumption of risk apply to a personal fitness trainer supervising exercise?
![Page 24: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Rostai
Facts:
•P hires “certified” trainer for fitness program.
•P is 46, male, sedentary, and overweight.
•1st workout, P feels fatigue, heat, thirst, chest pain.
•P repeatedly asks to stop. Workout continues.
•MI ensues. Emergency stent surgery later that day.
![Page 25: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Rostai
Plaintiff’s COA
Negligence of personal trainer
Duty? To investigate P’s health history, current condition, & cardiac risk factors. Breach? Trainer’s failure caused the heart attack to
occur under his supervision.
![Page 26: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Rostai
Defense: Primary Assumption of Risk
Apply Doctrine if:
Imposing a duty in activities with inherent risks
changes its purpose . . .“alters” and “chills”.
Consider: 1. nature of the activity. 2. role of D.
![Page 27: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Rostai
Court’s Analysis
Activity?
Fitness training is an activity.
Student-instructor relationship.
Role of Trainer . . .challenge the student beyond current fitness levels.
![Page 28: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Rostai
Court’s Analysis
Inherent Risks?
Trainer will not accurately assess fitness level.
Student will not be able to meet instructor’s challenge.
Various injuries, including a heart attack.
![Page 29: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Rostai
Court’s Findings
•At most, trainer did not accurately assess P’s
fitness.
•P’s symptoms during workout? Could be interpreted as poor
conditioning rather than symptoms of MI.
•No evidence of intent or reckless conduct.
•No evidence of increased risk.
![Page 30: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Rostai
Court’s Findings
Therefore, no duty to protect against heart attack during exercise.
Affirm MSJ for D.
![Page 31: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
HEMADY v. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCH. DIST. 143 CAL.APP.4TH 566 (2006)
Issue: What standard of care governs injuries
occurring in a middle school golf class?
Primary assumption of risk apply? Limited duty?
orPrudent Person Standard of Care?
![Page 32: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Hemady
Facts:
• Classmate swings golf club during 7th grade
P.E. class and hits P in the mouth.• Teeth knocked out, jaw shattered.
Plastic surgery to repair disfigured face.• D swung club w/o trying to hit ball.• D ignored teacher’s instructions.
•COA: Negligent supervision of instructor.
![Page 33: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Hemady
COURT’S ANALYSIS:
Nature of the activity?
A 7th grade golf class is instructional,
mandatory, and non-competitive.
Inherent risks?
Being hit in the head by a golf club is not an
inherent risk of the game. Especially in a 7th grade class.
![Page 34: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Hemady
COURT’S ANALYSIS:
“Alter” or “Chill”? Imposing upon golfers the obligation to look
before swinging: 1. does not require a fundamental
alteration of the game. 2. does not discourage competition or vigorous participation. 3. does not chill a coach or instructor’s role
to challenge students to hit further or more accurately.
![Page 35: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Hemady
Court’s Analysis:
•Policy considerations of Knight and Kahn not applicable under these circumstances.
•Therefore, application of prudent person standard.
•Rev MSJ for D and Remand.
![Page 36: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
QUESTIONS/PROBLEMS
Do circumstances matter?
Competitive sports/co-participants Instructional activities/teacher-student Conduct based upon “in the moment” decisions v. deliberate design? Voluntary v. mandatory activities? Special qualifications, e.g., “certified” trainer? Organizational standards re conduct?
![Page 37: The Misinterpretation of Knight v. Jewett Linda Sharp, University of Northern Colorado Peg Ciccolella, University of the Pacific.](https://reader035.fdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062807/56649d215503460f949f5c27/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
QUESTIONS/PROBLEMS (cont)
•Matter of fact for jury or matter of law for court?
•Interpretation gives immunity for negligent behavior?
Reasonable care under the circumstances?
Christian v. Rowland