2017 Ohio 8459
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In April 2009, 12-year-old Hayden Lemaster (≈97 lbs.), a sixth-grade student, participated in an out-of-season GCCS middle‑school football conditioning session supervised by coach Sean Swank.
- After the main session, students (allegedly at Swank’s instruction) attempted to "max out" on a squat; Hayden was loaded with about 200 lbs. on his shoulders/back and completed the lift while being spotted.
- Hayden immediately felt spinal pain/dizziness and later was diagnosed with compression fractures of the spine.
- Plaintiffs sued Swank for reckless conduct and GCCS under respondeat superior; parents asserted loss of consortium. Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the court of appeals reversed as to both Swank and GCCS and remanded, finding genuine issues of material fact on recklessness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coach's conduct was reckless (defeating primary assumption of risk) | Swank intentionally instructed or encouraged boys to "max out" and allowed ~200 lbs. on a 12‑year‑old inexperienced lifter, consciously disregarding an obvious, unreasonable risk | Swank denied instructing "max out," asserted proper technique and supervision, and argued risks are inherent to sport (no recklessness) | Reversed summary judgment: evidence created genuine factual dispute that coach's conduct could be reckless |
| Whether school's liability under respondeat superior survives summary judgment | Employer liable for employee's reckless acts committed within scope | School argued summary judgment proper because no reckless act by employee | Reversed: respondeat superior claim remanded along with coach's liability |
| Admissibility/consideration of expert affidavit (untimely disclosure) | Plaintiffs relied on strength/conditioning coach affidavit asserting maxing out minors is reckless | Trial court excluded affidavit as untimely under local rule; defendants relied on exclusion | Concurring judge: exclusion unclear because trial court did not address good‑cause exception; majority outcome did not hinge solely on that affidavit |
| Whether Marchetti primary assumption‑of‑risk rule should be limited for young minors | Plaintiffs urged that severe injuries to 6th/7th graders aren’t assumed risks and coaches must exercise greater care | Defendants relied on standard assumption‑of‑risk analysis for recreational sports | Court found primary issue is recklessness; remanded to resolve factual disputes about coach's conduct (second assignment moot) |
Key Cases Cited
- Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St.3d 95 (Ohio 1990) (under primary assumption of the risk, recreational‑activity participant assumes inherent risks unless defendant acted recklessly or intentionally)
- Matkovich v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 210 (Ohio 1982) (generally questions of recklessness are for the jury)
- Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1990) (definition and high standard for recklessness; conscious disregard of known or obvious risk)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 2012) (clarifies recklessness standard in sports‑related cases)
- Sicard v. Univ. of Dayton, 104 Ohio App.3d 27 (Ohio Ct. App.) (summary judgment improper where spotters/coaches may have failed to exercise reasonable care during lifting exercise)