🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MS-C.724879834.377401575.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM>,
 Mark Crispin <mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> writes...
>It seems that a girl[*] made it into her high school's football program.  I
>believe she played fullback, although I'm not sure.  During a game, she got
>hit and seriously injured; subsequent surgery was necessary to remove her
>spleen and a kidney.
> 
>She is now suing the school district for megabucks on the grounds that the
>school's athletic program failed to disclose to her that football is a sport
>in which you can get seriously injured.

Well, the courts are generally reluctant to impose liability for negligence in
recreational sports cases; most states require reckless behavior.  The facts
here, on the other hand, may be distinguished as an ordinary failure to warn. 
Even then, assumption of risk would probably be an adequate defense (spectators
are generally considered to assume risk of injury at sproting events, so why
not players?)

What this plaintiff will probably need to prove:
1.	That the case is an ordinary failure to warn and that therefore she can
collect if the district was merely negligent.
2.	That the district's servant (presumably the coach) did fail to warn.
3.	That she (or the reasonable high-schooler) would not have been aware of
the danger beforehand.
4.	That she (or the reasonable high-schooler) would not have played had
she been properly warned.
5.	That her playing was the cause of the injury.
6.	That her injury was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the failure
to warn (in a general sense).
7.	That she suffered damages.

Probable defenses:
1.	Assumption of risk.
2.	Intervening (mis)conduct by another party.
3.	Contributory negligence.

Of course, I'm not licensed to practice, but this is basic tort law.  As you
can see, the plaintiff may, at first glance, have some trouble with this case.

>I wonder, with the current push to get homosexuals into the military and to
>get women into combat duty, if we will see similar lawsuits about failure to
>disclose that combat is an activity in which you can get seriously injured,
>maimed for life, or killed?

Probably not.  Sovereign immunity would apply, as combat is almost always in
connection with government policy.

						Dan, ad nauseum
						Daniel Reitman
						DReitman@Oregon.UOregon.Edu