Welch v. Young
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1433
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Welch was injured when Jordan Young, a little league player, took practice swings with a bat, striking Welch's knee.
- Welch, the team mom, sued Jordan Young, Shawn Young (coach), McCutcheon Youth Baseball League, Inc., and Wea Township entities (Wea Summer Recreation/Wea Summer Recreation Center).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants; Welch’s motion to correct error was denied.
- The case centers on whether Jordan Young’s conduct was within the range of ordinary behavior of participants in the sport under a new Pfenning v. Lineman framework.
- The court held that the status of Welch as participant vs spectator cannot alone determine liability; analysis focuses on breach of duty under the sport's ordinary conduct standard.
- Genuine issues of material fact exist regarding Jordan Young’s exact location and whether the injury occurred before or during the game, precluding summary judgment on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shawn Young is immune as a governmental employee | Welch argues Shawn can be liable personally; immunity should not bar all claims. | Defendants contend Shawn Young is immune under Ind. Code § 34-13-3-5(b) as a government employee. | Summary judgment upheld to the extent of governmental immunity; no error in dismissing Shawn as a personal defendant on that basis. |
| Duty analysis for sports injuries after Pfenning | Welch contends she may recover if Jordan’s conduct breached duty; invites traditional duty analysis. | Defendants rely on lack of duty or inherent risk under prior co-participant rules. | Pfenning adopts a breach-of-duty standard focusing on reasonableness; if conduct is within the range of ordinary behavior of participants, no breach as a matter of law. |
| Whether Jordan Young's warmup swings were within the range of ordinary behavior | Welch asserts location and conduct during warming up may be outside ordinary behavior. | Defendants argue the conduct falls within ordinary sporting activity and thus is not a breach. | Issues of fact remain about location and timing; summary judgment reversed in part and remanded to determine if conduct was within the range of ordinary behavior. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (limits breach analysis in sports injuries; conduct within ordinary behavior not breach)
- Estes v. Tripson, 932 P.2d 1367 (Ariz. 1992) (limited analysis of risk in sport; supports no breach if within ordinary activity)
- Allen v. Dover Co-Recreational Softball League, 807 A.2d 1274 (N.H. 2002) (factors for evaluating reasonableness in recreational softball context)
- Phares v. Carr, 106 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. 1952) (assumed risk doctrine guidance; limits liability when injury outside active participation area)
- Crawn v. Campo, 643 A.2d 600 (N.J. 1994) (contextualizes inherent risk and physical contact in recreational sports)