Recreation on Public Land Jeopardized (Connecticut)
(Recent developments in Connecticut case-law appear to reverse past trends and open up public lands to liability for injuries incurred in connection with recreational use by members of the public.)
The Overlawyered blog recently posted an article discussing developments which are opening up public lands to potential liability where protections were once found. This trend could potentially stifle recreational opportunities for state citizens.
Betts v. New Castle Youth Development Center (Pennsylvania)
(17-year-old suffers spinal cord injury while playing “pick-up” football at a government youth development center; the center and its employees are found immune under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution.)
The 17-year-old plaintiff severely injured himself while attempting to make a tackle in a “pick up” tackle football game without any pads, helmets, or other safety gear. He thereafter sued the New Castle Youth Development Center (a facility that houses youths that have been adjudicated delinquent and committed to the state’s care) and several members of its staff, alleging that his rights were violated under the Eighth Amendment (prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment”) and Fourteenth Amendment (deprivation of substantive due process) of the United States Constitution. The evidence indicated that immediately after the incident, an employee of the facility asked the plaintiff to tell authorities that he was playing touch football at the time of the injury rather than tackle football. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment contending that they were immune from liability under the Eleventh Amendment and the United States District Court agreed, finding that the facility was an administrative agency “without existence apart from the Commonwealth.” As for the claims against the individual employees, the District Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to show a “substantial risk of serious harm” and “deliberate indifference to that risk.” The court stated that the challenged behavior of allowing the youths to play tackle football without equipment “did not shock the conscience.” The plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeal affirmed the District Court’s decision.
NOTE: In ruling against the plaintiff on the Eighth Amendment claim, the court included the following notable quotable: “Life is fraught with risk of serious harm and the sports world is no exception.” The discussion by the Court of Appeal in terms of the risk evaluation of tackle football is quite interesting. Citing past incidents of publicized spinal cord injuries, the plaintiff asserted that the risk of serious harm inherent in playing tackle football without equipment was “obvious.” However, the Court of Appeal stated that the plaintiff’s evidence shed “no light on the frequency or likelihood of such injuries” and did not mean that there was a “substantial risk.” The Court concluded that there was no “evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that serious injury is a common or likely occurrence in tackle football games.” The Court also referred to the fact that there had been no prior reported injuries as a result of tackle football games at the facility, supporting the conclusion that there could be no deliberate indifference to a serious risk on the part of the facility or its employees.
Klein v. U.S. (California)
(California Supreme Court rules that the liability shield of California’s recreational use statute did not extend to acts of vehicular negligence.)
The plaintiff was riding a bicycle for recreation on a two-lane paved road in Angeles National Forest in Southern California when he was struck head-on by an automobile driven by a part-time volunteer working for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The court ruled that California Civil Code Section 846, which provides that a landowner “owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose” did not extend to acts of vehicular negligence. The Court based its decisions on the plain language of the statute noting that the statutory phrase “keep the premises safe” related to property-based duties underlying premises liability, not including vehicular negligence.
NOTE: The Court’s conclusion was logical based upon the clearly defined duties related to premises liability.
Jestes v. Cleveland County Board of Education (North Carolina)
(High School Cheerleader Injured During Practice and Sued School Board; School Board was Partially Immune Pursuant to Government Immunity Statutes, But Waived Immunity in Part By Procuring Excess Liability Insurance)
A cheerleader, who was injured while participating in a cheerleading practice, brought a lawsuit against the school board and its cheerleading coach. The school board filed a motion for summary judgment, citing government immunity barring actions against the state, its counties, and its public officials sued in their official capacity. The trial court denied the motion in part and granted it in part, finding that the board was immune up to a certain dollar value, but that the board had waived its immunity above that value by procuring excess liability insurance coverage. The board appealed the ruling.
