Justices Set Limits on Coach Lawsuits

Coaches who cause injuries to young athletes are protected from lawsuits unless they acted recklessly or intended to hurt the child, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a decision in which both sides claimed victory, the state high court barred athletes from recovering damages if a coach behaved negligently, but permitted lawsuits against coaches whose conduct was “totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in teaching or coaching” a sport.

Finding potential recklessness in the case of a swim team coach, the court unanimously reinstated a lawsuit brought by a woman who broke her neck at the age of 14 when her coach told her that she had to dive at a meet if she wanted to compete.

Although a victory for the plaintiff, the ruling makes it difficult to sue coaches. Proving recklessness is more of a hurdle than showing negligence, the standard for most personal injury lawsuits.

“I think it is frightening for California children that their coaches and instructors aren’t held to negligence standards,” said Sharon J. Arkin, who helped argue the case for the state’s trial lawyers. “Coaches can push children beyond their capability, and there is no liability.”

Joseph Collins, a lawyer who argued for the defense in the case, said the ruling has made it clear that coaches cannot be sued simply for misjudgments.

“For most injuries that occur in the coach-athlete setting, this decision affirms there should be no lawsuit as a result of that injury,” said Collins, who represented the California Ski Industry Assn., which sided with the coach in the case.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, the state high court said a coach’s liability for injuries must be restricted because “a significant part of an instructor’s or coach’s role is to challenge or ‘push’ a student or athlete to advance in his or her skill level.”

Although the court limited liability, the justices’ conclusion that the swim team coach may have been reckless might ultimately make it easier for other athletes to bring similar claims, said UC Berkeley Emeritus Law Professor Stephen Barnett.

“By letting this case go to the jury, the court indicates that recklessness doesn’t have to be all that reckless,” Barnett said.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by Olivia Kahn, who was a freshman at a San Jose high school when she joined the junior varsity swim team. She had little swimming experience and was terrified of diving.

She said the swim team coach, Andrew McKay, promised her that she would not have to dive at swim meets, where the races were held in pools 3 1/2 feet deep, according to the opinion. Instead, he said she could swim the first leg of relays from inside the pool.

But on Oct. 13, 1994, minutes before a meet was to start, McKay told her that she had to dive if she wanted to participate. The panicky teenager begged him to relent, according to the opinion, but she said he refused.

Two teammates offered to help train her, and she went with them to a shallow racing pool to practice from a starting block. On her third practice dive, she broke her neck. McKay later said he had given Kahn some training in diving. But she insisted that she had been taught how to dive only into a deep pool.

A trial judge dismissed Kahn’s suit on the grounds that injury from diving is one of the inherent risks of competitive swimming. A Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

But the state Supreme Court said the evidence “went far beyond a claim that the coach made an ordinary error of judgment in determining that she was ready to perform the shallow-water dive.”

“Clearly, a disputed issue of fact exists as to whether the coach provided any instruction at all on shallow-water diving,” George wrote, “and the nature of the coach’s promises and threats to plaintiff also are in dispute.”

If McKay directed Kahn to dive in shallow water without any instruction, ignored her fears and “made a last-minute decision that she dive during competition in breach of a previous promise,” a jury could conclude that the coach was reckless, George wrote.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote separately, declaring that the standard for liability for coaches should be conduct representing “a gross or extreme departure from the instructional norms.”

Justice Joyce L. Kennard, in another separate opinion, said the court should have required young, injured athletes to prove only that their coaches acted negligently, not recklessly.

“In the majority’s view, a coach of teenage athletes need have little concern for their physical safety,” Kennard wrote.

Kahn, now 22, spent months in the hospital after her accident. She walks with a limp and suffers from headaches and has little sensation on one side of her body, said Patrick McMahon, her lawyer.

“I am so delighted for Olivia,” McMahon said. “When I found out this morning, I was in court and was jumping up and down. I was just screaming.”

Mark E. Davis, who represents McKay and the East Side Union High School District in San Jose, said the evidence would show that McKay had not been reckless. Davis said the ruling in Kahn vs. East Side Union High School District, S105735, was not a complete victory for either side.

“At least the court has recognized that merely pushing a student athlete to do something they haven’t done before is not something that should, by itself, create liability,” Davis said.

McMahon said he expected the case to be settled without a trial. Davis said Kahn had previously sought $1.75 million, which was rejected.

Neither Kahn nor McKay could be reached for comment.