ILNews

COA applies sports injury conduct rule

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Less than three months after the Indiana Supreme Court issued a decision about sports injury cases, the state’s intermediate appellate court is now applying the new rule regarding how liability should be determined.

The Court of Appeals issued a decision Thursday in Cynthia Ann Welch v. Shawn D. Young, et al., No. 79A02-1012-CT-1407, involving a youth baseball game injury case that wound up in Tippecanoe Circuit Court.

Cynthia Welch, who was “Team Mom” for her son’s Wea Summer Recreation youth baseball team, was handing out bubble gum to the players during a game on May 30, 2007. She walked by the dugout where Jordan Young,  the 11-year-old son of team coach Shawn Young, was warming up “on deck” with practice swings outside the dugout, and his bat hit Welch in the knee.

Though the appellate decision doesn’t outline what her injuries were or what happened next, Welch filed a complaint alleging various theories of liability against the coach, as well as the McCutcheon Youth Baseball League and Wea Summer Recreation and Wea Summer Recreation Center. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted summary judgment for all the defendants. Specifically, the court in August 2010 found that the action against Shawn Young was barred by Indiana Code 34-13-3-5(b) because his employer, Wea Township, is a governmental entity, and the Wea Summer Recreation defendants were not liable for the child’s negligence. The local court also noted Welch hadn’t argued Shawn Young was liable in any individual capacity, and it later found that she was a “participant” in the sporting event because of her role as “Team Mom” and that she’d incurred the risks.

But on appeal, the Court of Appeals dismissed the “participant” determination because of the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling from May in Cassie E. Pfenning v. Joseph E. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011), a golf ball injury case in which the justices on first impression adopted a standard that summary judgment is appropriate when a sports participant is acting within the range of ordinary behavior and whatever injury occurs isn’t because of unreasonable conduct.

Even though this case happened before the May 18 ruling in Pfenning, the intermediate panel unanimously found that the standard applies and it doesn’t matter whether Welch was a “participant” in determining liability. Still, the Pfenning decision didn’t offer any guidance on what might be “ordinary behavior” and that is what the Court of Appeals took up largely in this current appeal on the topic of breach of duty.

That meant exploring the actions of both Welch and the 11-year-old boy who swung the bat and hit her in the knee.

“Our Supreme Court offered little guidance in Pfenning as to the meaning of its new rule that ‘if the conduct of such participant [i.e. the alleged tortfeasor] is within the range of ordinary behavior of participants in the sport, the conduct is reasonable as a matter of law and does not constitute a breach of duty,” Judge Melissa May wrote.

The appellate panel relied on caselaw from other states such as Hawaii and New Hampshire, as well as a 60-year-old Indiana Court of Appeals case involving a golfer taking practice swings away from the tee.

But questions remain in this case about where Welch was standing when she was injured, as well as whether the baseball game had actually started at the time. The court determined it couldn’t decide what might be reasonable, so it reversed and sent that back for the trial court to explore. Since Welch didn’t address the governmental immunity aspect in her briefing, the appellate court couldn’t say whether the trial court erred in that holding and affirmed it.

“The record before us presents issues of fact that will likely have a bearing on whether Jordan Young’s conduct when Welch was injured was within the range of ordinary behavior of participants in little league baseball. We must therefore reverse summary judgment for Young and remand,” the court wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT