ILNews

Justices rule against woman injured by karate kick

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman who sued a karate classmate when she was injured by his jump-kick cannot prove recklessness, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday, extending its jurisprudence applied to torts arising from sports injuries.

Justices affirmed summary judgment in favor of David Dunn, whose jump-kick injured black belt Tresa Megenity as she held the bag during a “kick the bag” drill, extending and clarifying a prior ruling in a sports negligence case.

“Our decision in Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011), established a limited new rule: Indiana courts do not referee disputes arising from ordinary sports activity. Instead, as a matter of law, when a sports participant injures someone while engaging in conduct ordinary in the sport — and without intent or recklessness — the participant does not breach a duty,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote for the court.

“Today we clarify that under Pfenning ordinary conduct in the sport turns on the sport generally — not the specific activity. Here, during a karate class drill, David Dunn jump-kicked a bag, injuring Tresa Megenity, who was holding the bag. Since jump kicks are ordinary in the sport of karate generally, and no evidence supports intent or recklessness, Megenity cannot show breach as a matter of law. We thus affirm summary judgment for Dunn.”

In Pfenning, the court rejected a suit brought by a teen beverage cart driver who was struck by an errant golf ball after a golfer failed to yell “fore.”

“(A)djusting our focus to the sport of karate overall, we conclude that Dunn’s jump kick was ordinary, even if it was contrary to the protocol for the kicking-the-bag drill,” Rush wrote. “Like the wayward drive in Pfenning, Dunn’s jump kick may reflect poor technique or faulty execution. But it was ordinary conduct in the sport or karate generally, and no evidence show intent or recklessness. We therefore find no breach as a matter of law and affirm summary judgment.”

The case is Tresa Megenity v. David Dunn, 22S04-1609-CT-465.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
ADVERTISEMENT