Cameron v. Univ. of Toledo
98 N.E.3d 305
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Incoming freshman offensive lineman Kyle Cameron participated in a July 12, 2011 "freshman Olympics" drill at University of Toledo football practice and jumped off a teammate's back to dunk a football on the goalpost, falling and suffering severe head/neck injury.
- Cameron alleged brain injury, loss of ability to play, and loss of scholarship; he sued the University in the Court of Claims for civil hazing under R.C. 2307.44 and for negligence (vicarious liability for coaches/trainers).
- The University pleaded the statutory affirmative defense that it was actively enforcing an anti-hazing policy and asserted assumption of known risk as an affirmative defense to negligence.
- The Court of Claims found the University had an anti-hazing policy that was being enforced, dismissed the hazing claim on that basis, and held primary assumption of the risk barred Cameron’s negligence claim; judgment for University.
- On appeal the Tenth District: affirmed the ruling that the University established the anti-hazing affirmative defense (so the hazing claim was resolved), reversed the Court of Claims on primary assumption of the risk, held coaches/trainers owed a duty of care, and remanded for determination of breach and proximate cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether University proved the R.C. 2307.44 affirmative defense that it was actively enforcing an anti-hazing policy | Cameron argued the policy was not communicated to or enforced against the freshmen/football team before the injury | University argued it had a February 2011 policy, distributed student-athlete handbooks and took enforcement/education steps | Court: Affirmative defense proven by competent evidence (policy, handbooks, distribution signatures, enforcement efforts); first assignment overruled |
| Whether Cameron proved elements of civil hazing under R.C. 2307.44 / R.C. 2903.31 | Cameron claimed the dunking was an initiation act creating substantial risk | University relied on the affirmative defense and disputed elements | Court: Did not decide on elements because affirmative defense resolved claim; second assignment dismissed as moot |
| Whether coaches/trainers/University owed a duty of care to Cameron (negligence/respondeat superior) | Cameron argued contractual duties and coach–athlete relationship created foreseeable duty to protect/supervise | University argued no independent duty beyond contract; limited duties only during scheduled activities | Court: Duty existed—based on employment duties to protect athletes, common-law coach–athlete duties under the circumstances, and foreseeability; trial court erred in finding no duty |
| Whether primary assumption of risk barred negligence claim (and proximate cause/breach) | Cameron argued the dunk was not an inherent, unavoidable football risk and that University failed to supervise | University argued the dunk and risk of falling are inherent to such team-building/football activities; thus primary assumption bars recovery | Court: Primary assumption of risk does not apply to the specific conduct (jumping off a teammate to dunk) — reversed; remanded to consider breach and proximate cause |
Key Cases Cited
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 376 N.E.2d 578 (Ohio 1978) ("some competent, credible evidence" standard for resisting manifest-weight reversal)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328, 972 N.E.2d 517 (Ohio 2012) (explanation of civil manifest-weight-of-the-evidence review)
- Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266, 773 N.E.2d 1018 (Ohio 2002) (duty analysis tied to foreseeability and defendant–plaintiff relationship)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 544 N.E.2d 265 (Ohio 1989) (standard for common-law duty of care)
- Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427, 659 N.E.2d 1232 (Ohio 1996) (primary assumption of risk can negate duty; caution in applying defense)
- Horvath v. Ish, 134 Ohio St.3d 48, 979 N.E.2d 1246 (Ohio 2012) (risk must be inherent and unavoidable to sport/activity for primary assumption to apply)
- Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95, 559 N.E.2d 699 (Ohio 1990) (doctrine of primary assumption of the risk in sporting contexts)