Ex-Cheerleader Can’t Sue for Being Dropped.
A former high school cheerleader who sued over injuries caused when a teammate failed to catch her during a routine, lost her appeal before the Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The seven state justices unanimously concluded cheerleading is a “contact” sport, and therefore neither the male student cited nor the school district was liable for damages.
The opinion also said the stunt in question did not create a “compelling danger” to students.
It is the first legal decision of its kind, according to the National Cheer Safety Foundation, a group founded by parents.
The case was closely watched by school districts and parents around the country concerned about whether they would have immunity from lawsuits involving unintentional injuries from certain extracurricular activities.
As long as she wasn’t intentionally dropped, there shouldn’t be any liability here. There are certain risks you take when participating in sports and other physical activities. If the court had ruled the other way, it would have virtually shut down contact sports in the state because the liability insurance would cost a fortune.
Good ruling. Now we wont see Aaron Rogers suing Mark Taucher for allowing that next sack against the Bears.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2009 at 0822 hrs
Assuming this young lady suffered no permanent injuries and her family is not saddled with medical bills, I APPLAUD this decision too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2009 at 0928 hrs
Sounds reasonable to me.
Posted by scott on January 28, 2009 at 0955 hrs
Finally a line in the sand holding the leechy lawyers at bay. Excellent ruling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2009 at 1000 hrs
Yeah, it’s called “the legal system.”
Posted by scott on January 28, 2009 at 1006 hrs
Laker, the ruling would be the same even if she had been paralyzed for life and her family bankrupted by medical costs. The severity of her injuries doesn’t change the underlying legal theory. It is either good law regardless of the extent of her injuries or bad law. Why do you think it would be bad law if her injuries were more serious?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2009 at 1037 hrs
True. As much as I might worry about a family becoming bankrupt due to the medical costs of illness or injury, those problems are better dealt with by reforming our health care system and other social safety nets.
Posted by scott on January 28, 2009 at 1058 hrs
I agree with the verdict, no matter what the incident may be, you sign up for it knowing full well what you’ll be required to do. I say required to do because there’s no law saying that you have to participate in an activity even if you appose it
The stunt was completely voluntary, and her decision to participate in the stunt is an unofficial agreement to assume all responsibilities from that stunt.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2009 at 1111 hrs
Whoa, there folks. There are scenarios in which this coach or the school might be held liable. I mean, what if the activity required equipment which was known to be faulty and caused the injury? What if the coach asked his students to do something unreasonable and excessively dangerous? What if someone was injured or ill and he forced them to continue, causing a more serious problem? There are all kinds of situations in which someone might be successfully and rightly sued here. It’s just that I don’t see those scenarios in this particular case.
Posted by scott on January 28, 2009 at 1121 hrs
The decision focused on whether Cheerleading is a “competitive sport.” I’m not sure I would make that concession. But Abrahamson did an excellent job in her concurrence of pointing out that because Cheerleading can be a competitive sport it falls under the immunity of the statute.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2009 at 1152 hrs
ohwhynot, I guess I wasn’t arguing whether it was good law or bad law, but rather that the outcome is what it should be, fair and equitable. My basis for that is a number of assumptions I made that were not made clear in this article; maybe prior articles spelled it out in more detail. I must also assume that Wisconsin is NOT a strict liability state for tort law, or the outcome most likely would have been very different.
This accident probably was covered by some form of insurance policy; the school district’s, the gymansium’s, whatever. The basic premise of insurance is to make an injured party “whole” again after an incident, not to make them rich; that is the purpose of punitive damages.
Sooooo, if there were no permanent injuries and the school’s insurance took care of any medical costs, then the system worked the way it’s supposed to, which is great. If, on the other hand, that is not the case, then more exploration is needed and quite, frankly we don’t have enough of the details. In other words, did this young woman suffer permanent injury or is she suing for future income because not having “High School Cheerleader” on her resume will keep from landing a spot on American Idol?
Bottomline, I’ve worked in the Property Casualty Insurance industry for many years and have been on the “bad” side of huge awards several times that were excessive compared to injuries actually sustained. It’s great to see a court put the brakes on runaway tort liability.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2009 at 1502 hrs
not to make them rich; that is the purpose of punitive damages.
Punitive damages are for punishing those who have to pay them, on the theory that they will refrain from similar behavior in the future. There are situations where individuals or organizations are negligent or otherwise liable for someone else’s misfortune. In that case, punitive damages might make sense. Especially if the org is so large and wealthy that they could pay the actual damages out of petty cash. In such cases, they have effectively no incentive to change their behavior. As ridiculous as it was, the million dollar judgement against the hot mcdonald’s coffee did have a germ of sense in it: the judgement represented a tiny fraction of what mcd’s took in coffee revenue for one day. To make the amount less than that, well, they don’t even feel it. Punishment has to be perceived to work. It has to hurt to be effective.
Posted by scott on January 28, 2009 at 1510 hrs
if there were no permanent injuries and the school’s insurance took care of any medical costs, then the system worked the way it’s supposed to, which is great. If, on the other hand, that is not the case, then more exploration is needed and quite, frankly we don’t have enough of the details
.
Actually, we do have the details:
http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo;=35354The Court held there is no insurance coverage for the claim because the School had immunity. The issues was actually pretty narrow:
Therefore, to obtain the benefit of immunity, a
defendant must be (1) participating in a recreational activity;
(2) that recreational activity must include physical contact
between persons; (3) the persons must be participating in a
sport; and (4) the sport must involve amateur teams.“If the court had ruled the other way, it would have virtually shut down contact sports in the state because the liability insurance would cost a fortune
.”
Owen is actually incorrect.
Stautory Immunity applies to contact sports. But the issue before the Court is whether cheerleading is a contact sport.
I’m not entirely convinced, is bowling next? ping pong? chess?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2009 at 1634 hrs
I wasn’t commenting on a matter of law. I was commenting on a matter of common sense. In this case, the law and common sense appear to be in sync, even if for different reasons.
Posted by Owen on January 28, 2009 at 1645 hrs
Scott, point well taken. I let my cynicism get the best of me. However, punitive damages are usually necessary to drive larger awards that are beyond actual compensatory damages. Then there are some jury awards that will invoke large payments for pain and suffering. Some are justified; many are not.
As for details on the case, I should have said I didn’t have them. Id, thanks for the link.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2009 at 1651 hrs
Owen, common sense makes poor legal precedent and screams of judicial activism.
Moreover, common sense and the court’s ruling would be directly at odds. Common sense is a question of fact that a Court cannot make. That is exclusivly in the domain of the fact finder, which in this case would have been a jury.
But if the debate were about common sense, wouldn’t it be common sense for a cheerleading team to use mats, when performing a complicated move for the first time? Wouldn’t it also be common sense to have an adult closer than 10 feet away when doing a pyrimid lift for the first time? Those are the issues a jury would have considered.
However, the Court held that the competitve sports immunity statute is not a matter of common sense. It is a matter of law. To that end, summary judgment was granted to the defenants.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2009 at 1708 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134034
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 08:13 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 130
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 08:47 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).