Dojo owners & MA competitors & organizers, there is some goo
Posted: Wed May 16, 2001 9:21 pm
With all the litigation which takes place in this society, and the stress on organizers of events resulting from liability claims, a case just was reported from Superior Court which quoted from a prior Supreme Judicial Court case which recognized the need to not impose special duties to participant's in sporting events, and in recognizing assumption of risk by participants.
This is a case arising out of a sport injury sustained when the coaches of a girl’s softball team got together and had an all coaches softball game. The sponsor of the girl’s league was a non profit organization, and the game in which the coach was injured was a game in which only the coaches participated. The suit was brought against the league for injury sustained from an allegedly defective base bag.
The court discussed the fact that the duty of care imposed and that one person owes to the other can give rise to liability only if a special relationship between the parties exists.
The court goes on further to say that the Superior Court has considered the relationship that exists between participants in sports competitions in terms of the duty one owes to another. In Gauvin V. Clark 404 Mass. 450 (1989) the court held that participants in sporting competitions would not be liable to one another for negligence. The court observed that players when they engage in sport, agree to undergo some physical contact which could amount to assault and battery absent the players’ consent. The courts are wary of imposing a wide tort liability on sports participants, lest the law chill the vigor of athletic competition… the majority of jurisdictions which have considered this issue have concluded that personal injury cases arising out of an athletic event must be predicated on reckless disregard of safety. The recklessness standard was found applicable to injuries sustained by participants non-contact sports such as golf. There is no reason to suppose that players who voluntarily associate themselves with a non-professional, sporting competition, such as coaches games in this case, have an expectation that the organizers or sponsors owe them any greater duty than their fellow players.
There is no evidence that any special rules were adopted and were to be enforced by the defendant Association to the players about the safety of the field, the equipment, or any of the other conditions. The game resembled, in all material respects, the sort of pick-up games among friends that take place on ball fields and gymnasiums in the communities throughout our Commonwealth.
“Just as negligence standard made applicable to participant to participant contact occurring during a sporting competition would adversely impact on an individual’s athletic performance, a negligence standard made applicable to a non profit association which organizes such competitions, which often includes securing permission to use a municipalities athletic field, court, pool or gymnasium and their equipment, would diminish the occasions when such socially beneficial competitions would take place.
The court went on to say that the plaintiff’s claim to special care or duty fails, since he as a coach during the girl’s games was aware as anyone else of the filed condition, and was in a good a position as the defendant Association to take steps to avoid it by not playing in the game or by arranging to use other types of bases. The defendant was awarded judgment in this case.
I think that the important aspect of this decision is that the Superior. Court of this state does recognize the assumption of some liability by sport players and the level of contact involved, and the duty of contact players to each other is not to engage in reckless or wanton misconduct.
Lesser degrees of imposing duty would undermine sports and athletics in the state.
Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that there are no reasonable safety standards such as the use of safety equipment and the regard of organizer’s to competitors well being and the enforcement of safety rules.
I believe that this case has significant importance by defining and recognizing the duties in a single case. Will it reduce your liability insurance? It should, but even if not, should stem some further increases. The case could be appealed, but some of the above language which is pertinent was already decided in an SJC case. This case is Goodwin V. Sports Association Purchasing Group. Essex Superior Court Civil Action No. 00-813-C.
This is a case arising out of a sport injury sustained when the coaches of a girl’s softball team got together and had an all coaches softball game. The sponsor of the girl’s league was a non profit organization, and the game in which the coach was injured was a game in which only the coaches participated. The suit was brought against the league for injury sustained from an allegedly defective base bag.
The court discussed the fact that the duty of care imposed and that one person owes to the other can give rise to liability only if a special relationship between the parties exists.
The court goes on further to say that the Superior Court has considered the relationship that exists between participants in sports competitions in terms of the duty one owes to another. In Gauvin V. Clark 404 Mass. 450 (1989) the court held that participants in sporting competitions would not be liable to one another for negligence. The court observed that players when they engage in sport, agree to undergo some physical contact which could amount to assault and battery absent the players’ consent. The courts are wary of imposing a wide tort liability on sports participants, lest the law chill the vigor of athletic competition… the majority of jurisdictions which have considered this issue have concluded that personal injury cases arising out of an athletic event must be predicated on reckless disregard of safety. The recklessness standard was found applicable to injuries sustained by participants non-contact sports such as golf. There is no reason to suppose that players who voluntarily associate themselves with a non-professional, sporting competition, such as coaches games in this case, have an expectation that the organizers or sponsors owe them any greater duty than their fellow players.
There is no evidence that any special rules were adopted and were to be enforced by the defendant Association to the players about the safety of the field, the equipment, or any of the other conditions. The game resembled, in all material respects, the sort of pick-up games among friends that take place on ball fields and gymnasiums in the communities throughout our Commonwealth.
“Just as negligence standard made applicable to participant to participant contact occurring during a sporting competition would adversely impact on an individual’s athletic performance, a negligence standard made applicable to a non profit association which organizes such competitions, which often includes securing permission to use a municipalities athletic field, court, pool or gymnasium and their equipment, would diminish the occasions when such socially beneficial competitions would take place.
The court went on to say that the plaintiff’s claim to special care or duty fails, since he as a coach during the girl’s games was aware as anyone else of the filed condition, and was in a good a position as the defendant Association to take steps to avoid it by not playing in the game or by arranging to use other types of bases. The defendant was awarded judgment in this case.
I think that the important aspect of this decision is that the Superior. Court of this state does recognize the assumption of some liability by sport players and the level of contact involved, and the duty of contact players to each other is not to engage in reckless or wanton misconduct.
Lesser degrees of imposing duty would undermine sports and athletics in the state.
Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that there are no reasonable safety standards such as the use of safety equipment and the regard of organizer’s to competitors well being and the enforcement of safety rules.
I believe that this case has significant importance by defining and recognizing the duties in a single case. Will it reduce your liability insurance? It should, but even if not, should stem some further increases. The case could be appealed, but some of the above language which is pertinent was already decided in an SJC case. This case is Goodwin V. Sports Association Purchasing Group. Essex Superior Court Civil Action No. 00-813-C.