EXSS 4053 Legal Issues in Sports Med Exam 1

What is "law"?

A set of rules created and enforced by government authority; it determines what people can, cannot, and must do, and what happens when they do or don't follow the rules.

Filing a lawsuit vs. being liable

Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone — filing proves nothing. A defendant is legally responsible (liable) only if the plaintiff proves the case; if the plaintiff loses, the defendant is not liable.

The six sources of American law

1) Constitution, 2) Statutes, 3) Regulations, 4) Case law, 5) Contracts, 6) Professional rules.

Constitution (source of law)

The highest form of law; federal and state governments derive their authority from constitutions.

Statutes (source of law)

Laws passed by Congress and by state legislatures.

Regulations (source of law)

Rules written by administrative agencies to implement statutes in detail.

Case law (source of law)

Court decisions interpreting the law; these decisions become binding precedent.

Contracts (source of law)

Private agreements that the legal system will enforce.

Professional rules (source of law)

Codes of conduct governing a licensed profession.

The two U.S. court systems

Federal and state court systems operate at the same time, and each is structured in three tiers.

Three tiers of the federal court system (bottom to top)

U.S. District Court (trial) → U.S. Court of Appeals (intermediate) → U.S. Supreme Court (highest).

Three tiers of a state court system (bottom to top)

District/Trial Court → (Intermediate) Court of Appeals → State Supreme Court.

Where does a negligence claim against a trainer begin?

In a trial court (U.S. District Court or state District/Trial Court) — not at the appellate or supreme court level.

What do appellate courts decide?

Appellate courts are not fact finders. They review the trial court's decision for legal error — they decide questions of law, not what happened.

Civil law: who files, and what is that party called?

A private person or business files; that party is called the plaintiff, who sues a named defendant.

Criminal law: who files, and what is that party called?

The government files (prosecution); the prosecution charges a named defendant.

Burden of proof: criminal case

Beyond a reasonable doubt — approximately 99% certainty.

Burden of proof: civil case

Preponderance of the evidence — more likely than not, approximately 51%.

Possible outcomes: criminal case

Fines, probation, imprisonment.

Possible outcomes: civil case

Money damages, injunction, temporary restraining order.

O.J. Simpson case — why is it a useful example?

It shows civil vs. criminal burdens applied to the same facts: he was acquitted of murder (no proof beyond a reasonable doubt) but later found liable in the civil wrongful death suit (more likely than not he caused the deaths).

Plaintiff

The party or parties bringing a lawsuit.

Defendant

The party or parties being sued.

Role of the judge in a civil case

Decides questions of law, including whether a duty exists, and rules on what evidence the jury may hear (controls the proceedings).

Role of the jury in a civil case

Decides questions of fact, including whether the standard of care was breached and whether that breach caused the harm.

Judge vs. jury — shorthand

Judge = law. Jury = facts.

What percentage of filed civil cases reach a jury trial?

Only about 1-2%; the great majority (roughly 95-98%) settle or resolve before trial (settlement, mediation, arbitration, or dismissal).

Eight stages of a lawsuit, in order

Complaint → Answer → Discovery → Motions → Settlement → Trial → Verdict/Judgment → Appeal.

Complaint (stage of a lawsuit)

The plaintiff files, explaining what happened and what relief is sought.

Answer (stage of a lawsuit)

The defendant's response to the complaint.

Discovery (stage of a lawsuit)

The pretrial stage where the parties exchange evidence and gather information.

What kinds of evidence are exchanged in discovery in a sports medicine case?

Medical records, treatment notes, emails, text messages, social media, video, departmental policies, witness testimony, and expert opinions.

Why does documentation matter in discovery?

"If you didn't document it, it's much harder to prove it happened." A contemporaneous treatment note may become the most important evidence in a case, but documentation must be accurate — it is not automatic protection.

Appeal process (stage of a lawsuit)

The trial court enters judgment; the losing party may appeal, generally arguing the trial court made a legal error; a further appeal to a higher court may follow.

IRAC method

A structure for briefing a case: Facts, Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion.

IRAC — Facts

What happened, who are the parties, and how did the case arrive at this court? Common error: omitting the court and the lower court's ruling.

IRAC — Issue

What legal question did the court have to answer? Common error: describing what happened or who won, instead of the legal question.

IRAC — Rule

What law, standard, or test did the court apply? Common error: failing to identify the source of the rule (statute, case law, regulation, etc.).

IRAC — Analysis

Why did the court decide as it did — use the word "because." Common error: restating the facts a second time instead of explaining the reasoning.

IRAC — Conclusion

What did the court hold, and what does that mean going forward? Common error: describing a reversal or remand as a victory.

Why does a repeated fact in a judicial opinion matter?

If an opinion repeats a fact, treat it as a signal — that fact is probably doing work in the court's reasoning (e.g., that the defendant was a coach rather than a trainer, or that the plaintiff had a pre-existing condition).

Definition of negligence (Martin v. Evans)

The failure to do something a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of something a reasonably careful person would not do, in light of all the surrounding circumstances. Martin v. Evans, 711 A.2d 458 (Pa. 1998).

The four elements of negligence

1) Injury, 2) Duty, 3) Breach, 4) Cause — the plaintiff must prove all four; failing on any one element defeats the claim, however careless the defendant may have been.

Why did negligence law grow in America (1825-1875)?

Population growth and industrial advancement — people interacted closer and more often, and societal advancements created more danger than had existed before.

Oklahoma negligence law — statute of limitations

2 years — the deadline to file suit.

Oklahoma negligence law — damages cap

$350,000 (other states vary).

Oklahoma's negligence fault system

Modified comparative negligence — a plaintiff can recover damages if they are 49% or less at fault. (Note: exact percentage determinations are not tested.)

Negligence Element 1: Injury — what must be shown?

A harm the law recognizes. An adverse effect alone (such as mere annoyance) is not sufficient.

Negligence Element 1: Injury — recognized categories

Physical harm (bodily injury or property damage), economic harm (medical expenses, lost wages), and emotional harm (e.g., depression).

Negligence Element 2: Duty — definition used in this course

That the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to act reasonably so as not to cause foreseeable harm to others. Duty is decided by the judge.

Negligence Element 2: Duty — the three balancing factors

1) The relationship between the parties, 2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm, 3) public policy concerns.

Cotterill v. Starkey (1839)

Early English case establishing that a carriage driver owes pedestrians a duty of care — an early root of the modern duty concept, later extended from medieval surgeon-patient duties to drivers.

General rule: is there a duty to rescue?

No. As a general matter, no person has a legal duty to aid or protect another, even a person who knows assistance is needed and is trained to provide it.

Four exceptions to the no-duty-to-rescue rule

1) Defendant created the danger, 2) special relationship (e.g., employer-employee, school-athlete), 3) business invitee (business owes reasonable assistance to patrons), 4) once a rescue is undertaken, the rescuer must not leave the person in a worse position.

Why does a stadium provide paramedics?

Because a business that invites the public onto its premises (business invitee exception) owes reasonable assistance to its patrons, even when the injury or illness is not the business's fault.

Negligence Element 3: Breach — what must be shown?

That the defendant's conduct deviated from (fell below) the applicable standard of care under the circumstances, and that deviation caused harm.

"Ordinary care" (breach standard)

The care a reasonably careful/prudent person would use under the circumstances; the amount of care required increases with the degree of danger involved.

Is the breach analysis objective or subjective?

Objective. The question is whether the defendant's CONDUCT was reasonably careful — not whether the defendant's ATTITUDE or effort was one of trying to be careful.

Breach standard and a defendant's physical condition vs. inexperience

The standard accounts for a defendant's physical condition (e.g., a blind defendant is compared to a reasonable blind person), but makes no allowance for inexperience or carelessness.

Breach — superior skill or qualification

Superior skill or qualification raises the standard of care. A licensed sports medicine professional is measured against others with similar training, not against the general public.

Negligence Element 4: Cause — the test

There must be a reasonable connection between the defendant's act or omission and the plaintiff's injury. If the injury would have occurred regardless of the defendant's conduct, causation is not established.

In a negligence trial, what does the judge decide vs. what does the jury decide?

Judge: whether a duty exists and what evidence is admissible (questions of law). Jury: whether the standard of care was breached and whether that breach caused the harm (questions of fact).

Negligence vs. Gross Negligence vs. Recklessness — the core distinction

The defendant's state of mind and awareness of risk.

Negligence (degree of fault)

A careless mistake or lapse of judgment; failing to exercise the care a reasonable person would use. A signed waiver may bar this claim.

Gross negligence (degree of fault)

An extreme departure from ordinary care — far beyond a simple mistake, but short of consciously accepting the danger. A waiver will NOT bar this claim.

Recklessness (degree of fault)

Conscious disregard of a known and substantial risk — the person recognizes the danger and proceeds anyway. A waiver will NOT bar this claim.

Why does the negligence/gross negligence/recklessness distinction matter practically?

A signed waiver may bar an ordinary negligence claim, but it can never bar a claim of gross negligence or recklessness.

Inherent risk

A danger built into the activity itself (e.g., being checked in a hockey game) — this asks about the ACTIVITY.

Assumed risk

A danger the participant knew of and chose to accept (e.g., a golfer who sees lightning strike nearby and keeps playing) — this asks what the PERSON knew and decided.

What is the limit on the inherent-risk/assumed-risk defenses?

Where a coach, trainer, or physician increases the risk beyond what the sport itself carries, the defense does not shield that conduct.

Walter v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. — citation

748 A.2d 961 (Me. 2000).

Walter v. Wal-Mart — facts

A Wal-Mart pharmacist filled an 80-year-old cancer patient's prescription with the wrong, substantially more toxic chemotherapy drug (Melphalan instead of Chlorambucil), causing serious illness and hospitalization.

Walter v. Wal-Mart — procedural posture

The trial court found for the plaintiff as a matter of law (without sending the case to a jury) because the evidence was so one-sided; Wal-Mart appealed directly to the Maine Supreme Court.

Walter v. Wal-Mart — duty holding

A pharmacist owes ordinary care, but for a pharmacist that means the highest practicable degree of prudence, thoughtfulness, and vigilance (Tremblay v. Kimball).

Walter v. Wal-Mart — breach holding

Breached: the pharmacist admitted the error, admitted it fell below the professional standard, and admitted he skipped the company's four-step verification process and did not consult the customer.

Walter v. Wal-Mart — causation holding

Caused: medical experts for both parties connected the wrong drug to her hospitalization and resulting harm.

Walter v. Wal-Mart — what can let a judge decide an issue without a jury?

A judge may decide an issue as a matter of law when the evidence permits only one rational conclusion.

Walter v. Wal-Mart — key takeaway about employers

An employer may be held liable for an employee's conduct even where the employer had safeguards in place that the employee failed to follow.

Walter v. Wal-Mart — why is this case the course's model case?

It walks through a complete element-by-element (duty, breach, cause) negligence analysis and shows that the standard of care moves with the defendant's occupation/training.

Vendrell v. School District No. 26C — citation

233 Or. 1, 376 P.2d 406 (Or. 1962), Supreme Court of Oregon.

Vendrell v. School District No. 26C — facts

A high school freshman broke his neck making a headfirst tackle about six weeks after he began practicing with the football team; a jury awarded him $25,000 against the school district.

Vendrell — rule

A participant in a contact sport assumes the risks inherent in and inseparable from the game: "body contacts, bruises, and clashes are inherent in the game; there is no other way to play it."

Vendrell — holding

Reversed, judgment entered for the school district. The injury arose from ordinary football contact, and six weeks of instruction/practice defeated the claim that the coaches failed to instruct him.

Vendrell — why did his six weeks of practice matter?

It showed he had been taught and understood what he was undertaking, defeating the failure-to-instruct theory — a plaintiff cannot claim ignorance of a danger that weeks of daily contact made plain.

Vendrell — does the inherent-risk doctrine excuse a school that fails to instruct, equip, or supervise?

No. Those are institution-created risks, not inherent risks, and are not immunized by the doctrine.

The organizing principle of the standard-of-care unit

The applicable standard of care rises with a person's training and credentials.

Standard of care: Athlete to athlete

Liability only for deliberate, willful, or reckless conduct; a mere error of judgment is insufficient. (Nabozny)

Standard of care: Coach

A reasonable coach possessing that coach's own training and certifications; the special relationship also creates a duty to provide prompt emergency care. (Cerny; Searles)

Standard of care: Athletic trainer

A reasonably prudent athletic trainer with similar training — a higher standard than a coach because of the trainer's specialized clinical education. (Searles; Feleccia)

Standard of care: Institution (college/school)

Must plan for foreseeable emergencies, supervise its activities, employ qualified personnel, and act reasonably after an injury occurs. (Kleinknecht; Limones; Davidson; Mogabgab)

Standard of care: Team physician

A fiduciary duty to disclose the athlete's condition and the risks of continued participation. (Krueger)

Nabozny v. Barnhill — citation

31 Ill. App. 3d 212, 334 N.E.2d 258 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975).

Nabozny v. Barnhill — facts

A forward kicked an opposing goalkeeper in the head while the goalkeeper was down holding the ball inside the penalty area, violating a safety rule.

Nabozny — holding/rule

Players owe each other a duty of care, but liability attaches only where the conduct is deliberate, willful, or in reckless disregard of another player's safety — not for a mere error of judgment.

Nabozny — why did the court set a high threshold for athlete-to-athlete liability?

So the law would not place unreasonable burdens on vigorous, free participation in sport.

Who decides whether athlete-to-athlete conduct was "more than an error of judgment"?

The jury — it is a question of fact, per Nabozny.

Pitcher v. Huddersfield Town FC (2001)

A negligent-tackle claim failed because the tackle, though a clear foul, was nothing more than an error of judgment — illustrating the Nabozny threshold.

Cerny v. Cedar Bluffs Junior/Senior Public School — citation

262 Neb. 66, 628 N.W.2d 697 (Neb. 2001).

Cerny — facts

A coach evaluated a player who had sustained a head injury and permitted him to continue participating.

Cerny — holding/rule

The standard is that of a reasonably prudent person holding a Nebraska teaching certificate with a coaching endorsement — an endorsement requiring coursework covering concussion symptoms, which raised the standard above that of an ordinary person.