Lydia Lanni v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, University of Notre Dame Du Lac, and United State Fencing Association, Inc.
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 599
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Lydia Lanni, a collegiate fencer, was injured at a March 7, 2010 fencing competition held at the University of Notre Dame when a saber struck her face while she stood in a designated waiting area near a strip.
- The tournament used USFA rules (adopted by the NCAA for fencing) and USFA-trained referees; event materials displayed NCAA and NCAA Fencing Committee logos.
- Lanni sued the NCAA, the USFA, and Notre Dame asserting negligence theories based on (1) general duty, (2) assumed duty/oversight, and (3) failure to supervise officials and event layout.
- The NCAA moved for summary judgment; the trial court initially granted it, this court reversed for procedural reasons and remanded, and on remand the trial court again granted summary judgment for the NCAA and the USFA.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals considered whether (a) the NCAA or USFA owed a duty of care and (b) whether Lanni was entitled to a change of judge after remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NCAA owed a general duty of care to Lanni | NCAA has sufficient control/oversight over rules, safety guidance, and site inspections to create a duty | NCAA's relationship to individual student-athletes and events is remote; it only issues guidance and does not directly control member institutions’ events | No general duty as a matter of law (court follows Yost analysis) |
| Whether NCAA assumed a specific duty to supervise/ensure safety | NCAA promulgated rules, conducted site inspections, collected injury data and thus assumed a duty to protect | NCAA’s actions amounted to guidance and occasional compliance checks, not direct supervision or control | No assumed duty; NCAA undertook guidance only, not direct oversight |
| Whether USFA owed a duty because its rules and referees were used | USFA-trained referees and application of USFA rules at the event show an assumed duty | Event was not USFA-sponsored; USFA lacked knowledge and control over the event | No duty; USFA’s relationship was more remote than NCAA’s |
| Whether Lanni was entitled to change of judge on remand under Trial Rule 76(C)(3) | Remand after reversal of summary judgment qualifies as an order requiring a new trial, so Rule 76(C)(3) ten-day change-of-judge window applies | A summary-judgment proceeding is not a "trial" for Rule 76(C)(3); remand did not involve weight/credibility findings that would trigger judge change | Denial of change-of-judge was proper; summary-judgment remand does not invoke Rule 76(C)(3) right to a new judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Yost v. Wabash Coll., 3 N.E.3d 509 (Ind. 2014) (national organization’s remote relationship to individual members does not establish a general duty of care)
- Smith v. Delta Tau Delta, 9 N.E.3d 154 (Ind. 2014) (educational outreach and disciplinary authority do not equal assumed duty of direct supervision)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (summary-judgment standard and de novo review principles)
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (summary-judgment standard for trial courts)
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1991) (three-factor test for recognizing a duty: relationship, foreseeability, public policy)
- State ex rel. Sink & Edwards, Inc. v. Hancock Superior Court, 470 N.E.2d 1320 (Ind. 1984) (summary-judgment proceedings are not a "trial" for purposes of Trial Rule 76 change-of-judge relief)