Brittany L. NOFFKE, by her guardian ad litem, Mart W. Swenson, Thad Noffke and Tina Kropelin, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners, v. Kevin BAKKE and American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners, HOLMEN HIGH SCHOOL, Holmen Area School District and Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company, Defendants-Respondents, GUNDERSEN LUTHERAN HEALTH PLAN, INC., and Atrium Health Plan, Inc., Defendants.
No. 2006AP1886
Supreme Court of Wisconsin
January 27, 2009
2009 WI 10 | 760 N.W.2d 156 | 315 Wis. 2d 350
Oral argument October 8, 2008.
For the defendants-respondents-petitioners there were briefs by Kara M. Burgos, James S. Naugler, and Moen Sheehan Meyer, Ltd., La Crosse, and oral argument by James S. Naugler.
For the defendants-respondents there was a brief by Peggy E. Van Horn and the Law Offices of Thomas P. Stilp, Brookfield, and oral argument by Peggy E. Van Horn.
¶ 2. This case presents the following three issues: First, is Bakke immune from a negligence suit arising out of an incident that occurred while he was participating as a cheerleader at Holmen High School? We conclude that, pursuant to
I. FACTS
¶ 3. The facts are not disputed by either party. Noffke was a varsity basketball cheerleader. On December 17, 2004, in the “Commons” of Holmen High School, Noffke fell while practicing a cheerleading stunt before a basketball game. The stunt was performed without any mats. Tragically, Noffke fell backward, her head struck the tile floor, and she was injured.
¶ 4. Three cheerlеaders were involved in this “post-to-hands” stunt. These participants had not previously performed this stunt together. Noffke was the “flyer,” i.e., the person who stands on the shoulders of the “base.” The base is not involved in this litigation. Bakke was the “post.”
¶ 5. By way of background, the post helps the flyer get into position on the base and initially supports most of the flyer‘s weight until her feet are secured on the base‘s shoulders. The post may also serve as the spotter after the flyer is on the base. Once Noffke was on the base and Bakke let go of her, Bakke was to go behind the base, but in this case, Bakke moved to the front. As a result, when Noffke fell backward, no one was there to prevent her injury. In addition, her cheerleading coach, a Holmen Middle School teacher, was
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 6. Noffke brought suit against Bakke for negligently failing to properly spot Noffke, and she also sued the school district alleging that the school‘s cheerleading coach was negligent by failing to provide a second spotter and failing to require the use of mats.
¶ 7. Bakke moved for summary judgment asserting that he was immune from liability by virtue of
¶ 8. The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court‘s decision. It concluded that Bakke was not entitled to immunity because cheerleading does not involve the type of physical contact that the legislature sought to immunize from negligence lawsuits. The court of appeals, however, affirmed the circuit court‘s decision to grant the school district immunity.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 9. Whether the circuit court properly granted summary judgment is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 315, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987). This court
IV. ANALYSIS
¶ 10. This case requires us to interpret
¶ 11. The context and structure of a statute are also important to the meaning of a statute. Kalal, 271 Wis. 2d 633, ¶ 46. “Therefore, statutory language is interpreted in the context in which it is used; not in isolation but as part of a whole; in relation to the language of surrounding or closely-related statutes; and reasonably, to avoid absurd or unreasonable results.”
¶ 12. ” ‘If this process of analysis yields a plain, clear statutory meaning, then there is no ambiguity, and the statute is applied according to this ascertainment of its meaning.’ ” Id., ¶ 46 (citation omitted). If statutory language is unambiguous, we do not need to consult extrinsic sources of interpretation. Id. ” ‘Statutory interpretation involves the ascertainment of meaning, not a search for ambiguity.’ ” Id., ¶ 47 (citation omitted). “[A] statute is ambiguous if it is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two or more senses.” Id. The test for ambiguity keeps the focus on the text of the statute, and as a result, a disagreement about the statutory meaning is not enough to render a statute ambiguоus. Id.Id. (citation omitted).
A. Bakke‘s immunity from negligence
¶ 13. Whether Bakke is immune from liability in the case at hand involves the interpretation of
¶ 14.
A participant in a recreational activity that includes physical contact between persons in a sport involving amateur teams, including teams in recreational, municipal, high school and college leagues, may be liable for an injury inflicted on another participant during and as part of that sport in a tort action only if the participant who caused the injury acted recklessly or with intent to cause injury.
¶ 15. For those recreational activities that do not involve physical contact, no immunity from negligence actions exists under the statute. See
In this section, “recreationаl activity” means any activity undertaken for the purpose of exercise, relaxation or pleasure, including practice or instruction in any such activity. “recreational activity” includes hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, bowling, billiards, picnicking, exploring caves, nature study, dancing, bicycling, horseback riding, horseshoe-pitching, bird-watching, motorcycling, operating an all-terrain vehicle, ballooning, curling, throwing darts, hang gliding, hiking, tobogganing, sledding, sleigh riding, snowmobiling, skiing, skating, participation in water sports, weight and fitness training, sight-seeing, rock-climbing, cutting or removing wood, climbing observation towers, animal training, harvesting the products of nature, sport shooting and any other sport, game or educational activity.
¶ 16. Therefore, to obtain the benefit of immunity, a defendant must be (1) participating in a recreational activity; (2) that recreational activity must include physical contact between persons; (3) the persons must be participating in a sport; and (4) the sport must involve amateur teams. In this case, therе is no dispute that cheerleading is a recreational activity. Noffke asserts that “Bakke‘s reliance on this statute is misplaced because he and Noffke were not engaged in a contact sport involving competitive teams.” (Emphasis added.) We address Noffke‘s two arguments regarding contact sports and competition in ¶¶ 24-34.
¶ 17. However, we note here that cheerleading, as discussed in ¶ 32, is a sport because a sport is “[a]n activity involving physical exertion and skill that is
¶ 18. Accordingly, the central question to be answered in this case is whether cheerleading involves “physical contact between persons.” While it is undeniable that cheerleaders touch one another, i.e., they have physical contact with one another during the course of their activity, we utilize a dictionary to guide our interpretation and ensure that we have accurately defined the common, ordinary phrase at issue: “physical contact.” See Swatek v. County of Dane, 192 Wis. 2d 47, 61, 531 N.W.2d 45 (1995) (stating that this court may consult a dictionary for the common meaning of a word). Reliance on a dictionary, however, does not render a word or phrase ambiguous. Sample, 215 Wis. 2d at 499-500.
¶ 19. The American Heritage Dictionary is frequently relied upon by courts. Id. at 500. It defines “contact” as follows: “1.a. A coming together or touching, as of objects or surfaces. b. The state or condition of touching or of immediate proximity[.]” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 406 (3d ed. 1992). The same dictionary defines “physical” as
¶ 20. As evident from the record, cheerleading involves a significant amount of physical contact between the chеerleaders that at times results in a forceful interaction between the participants. The record contains the 2004-05 spirit rules of the National Federation of State High School Associations. Pages 37 through 62 contain pictures illustrating the spirit rules that govern the various stunts. Every picture but one shows at least two cheerleaders in contact with one another.
¶ 21. The text of the spirit rules also supports the determination that cheerleading involves a significant amount of contact between cheerleaders. For example, rule one, section seven of the definition section describes a “pendulum.” A pendulum is “[a] stunt in which the top person in a straight body position falls forward and/or backward away from the base(s) to a horizontal position to catchers while maintaining constant hands-to-feet/legs contact with the base(s).”5 In the “General Risk Management” section of the spirit rules, rule two, section six, article seven provides that “[d]ismounts from multi-base stunts to a cradle must be cradled by at least two catchers and an additional head and shoulders catcher/spotter.”6
¶ 23. Accordingly, cheerleading involves a significant amount of contact among the participants that at times can produce a forceful interaction between the cheerleaders when one person is tossed high into the air and then caught by those same tossers. As a result, we conclude that cheerleaders are immune from negligence actions because they participate in a recreational activity that includes physical contact between persons in a sport involving amateur teams.
1. Noffke‘s argument regarding physical contact
¶ 24. Noffke argues that cheerleading does not give rise to the type of physical contact contemplated by the legislature. Specifically, Noffke asserts that the type of physical contact contemplated by the legislature must be more than the incidental contact that takes place in cheerleading. Noffke relies on the title of subsection (4m) for her argument, which provides: “Liability of contact sports participants.” The court of
¶ 25. First, reliance on the title for this interpretation is problematic. The “titles to subchapters, sections, subsections, paragraphs and subdivisions of the statutes and history notes are not part of the statutes.”
¶ 26. Furthermore, even if we looked to the title, it does not provide clear guidance. The dictionary uses football, hockey, and boxing as examples of contact sports. See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 406 (3d ed. 1992). However, subsection (4m)—as both parties аnd the court of appeals have asserted—was passed in response to Lestina v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., 176 Wis. 2d 901, 501 N.W.2d 28 (1993). In Lestina, this court concluded that negligence was the appropriate standard of care to govern the conduct of soccer match participants. Id. at 903. We doubt the legislature passed a statute in the wake of Lestina and then only protected aggressive contact sports such as football, hockey, or boxing.
¶ 27. Second, the language of the statute does not restrict its application to only “aggressive” sports such as football, hockey, or boxing. Rather, the stаtute encompasses any recreational activity that includes physical contact between persons in a sport involving amateur teams. If the legislature intended such a narrow construction, the legislature could have clearly placed such a restriction in the text of the statute.7
¶ 28. Third, Noffke‘s interpretation—that the statute does not apply to “incidental” contact but only to aggressive, competitive contact—would be difficult to apply and creates uncertainty. How much aggressive competitive contact is required for a sport to fall within that interpretation? The purpose behind
(1) Legislative purpose. The legislature intends by this section to establish the responsibilities of participants in recreational activities in order to decrease uncertainty regarding the legal responsibility for deaths or injuries that result from participation in recreational activities and thereby to help assure the continued availability in this stаte of enterprises that offer recreational activities to the public.
¶ 29. Unlike Noffke‘s requirement that a sport must involve a requisite amount of aggressiveness in order to qualify for immunity, the plain meaning of the words chosen by the legislature lends certainty regarding the legal responsibilities and liabilities of those who participate in recreational activities.
2. Noffke‘s argument that competition is required
¶ 30. Noffke argues that subsection (4m)(a) applies only to competitive team sports. In support of this argument, Noffke relies on the portion of subsection (4m)(a) that states, “recreational activity that includes physical contact between persons in a sport involving amateur teams.”
¶ 31. We disagree with Noffke‘s assertions for three reasons. First, no competition requirement exists in the statute. If the legislature sought to require competition, it could have used the word “competition.” To assert that such a requirement exists because the word “teams” is plural, elevates one letter in the statute to an absurd importance that would change the entire scope and application of the statute, which seems unlikely because the legislature could have easily used
¶ 32. Second, no surplusage exists because the words of the statute are not ignored by our interpretation. Physical contact between persons takes place in cheerleading. Cheerleading is a sport because a sport is “[a]n activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs,”9 and construing the word “sport” to exclude cheerleading in this case is inconsistent with the purpose of the statute, which is discussed in ¶ 28.10 Cheerleaders are on amateur teams because a team is “[a] group organized to work together”11 and cheerleaders, as provided in the spirit rules, are a group dedicated to leading fan participation and taking part in competitions.
¶ 33.
¶ 34. Accordingly, we conclude that cheerleaders are immune from negligence actions because they participate in a recreational activity that includes physical contact between persons in a sport involving amateur teams. However, we encourage the legislature to once again review this important statute and consider our interpretation and application to the facts of this case and how the statute may apply to such school team sports as golf, swimming, or tennis.
B. Recklessness
¶ 35. The second issue we must address regarding Bakke‘s liability is whether the circuit court erred when it concluded as a matter of law that Bakke was not reckless. If he was reckless, Bakke is not entitled to immunity under the terms of the statute. Noffke argues that recklessness is a question of fact the jury must resolve, and she argues that in this case Bakke knew he was a spotter responsible for Noffke‘s safety, Bakke heard others yelling at him to get behind Noffke, and he
¶ 36. “Recklessness ‘contemplates a conscious disregard of an unreasonable and substantial risk of serious bodily harm to another.‘” Werdehoff v. Gen. Star Indem. Co., 229 Wis. 2d 489, 507, 600 N.W.2d 214 (Ct. App. 1999) (citing Kellar v. Lloyd, 180 Wis. 2d 162, 184, 509 N.W.2d 87 (Ct. App. 1993)). The jury instruction committee provides:
A participant acts recklessly if (his) (her) conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another. It occurs where a participant engages in conduct under circumstances in which (he) (she) knows or a reasonable person under the same circumstances would know that the conduct creates a high risk of physical harm to another and (he) (she) proceeds in conscious disregard of or indifference to that risk. Conduct which creates a high risk of physical harm to аnother is substantially greater than negligent conduct. Mere inadvertence or lack of skill is not reckless conduct.
Wis JI—Civil 2020.
¶ 37. The circuit court concluded that a finder of fact could not find any evidentiary support “that reflected anything beyond a lack of skill, inadvertence or simple negligence, that this was not a conscious disregard for the safety of the plaintiff.” We agree with the circuit court‘s conclusion. Bakke went in front of the base instead of to the back, and when people yelled at him to get to the back he froze and did not move fast
C. Immunity of the school district
¶ 38. Next, we must determine whether
¶ 39. Noffke argues that the cheerleading coach violated a ministerial duty because the coach, as Noffke asserts, did not provide a spotter and mats as required by the spirit rules. In addition, Noffke argues that even if the coach did not violate a ministerial duty imposed by the spirit rules, the coach violated a ministerial duty that arose out of the known and compelling danger of allowing cheerleaders to perform a stunt for the first time without safety precautions. The school district, on the other hand, argues that no ministerial duty was violated because the school board did not officially adopt the spirit rules, the spirit rules were not violated, and no known and compelling danger existed. We conclude that the school district is immune because no ministerial duty imposed by law was violated and there was no known and compelling danger that gave rise to a ministerial duty.
¶ 40.
No suit may be brought against any volunteer fire company organized under ch. 213, political corporation, governmental subdivision or any agency thereof for the intentional torts of its officers, officials, agents or employees nor may any suit be brought against such corporation, subdivision or agency or volunteer fire company or against its officers, officials, agents or employees for acts done in the exercise of legislative, quasi-legislative, judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
¶ 41. This statute provides broad immunity from suit to municipalities and their officers and employees. Lodl v. Progressive N. Ins. Co., 2002 WI 71, ¶ 20, 253 Wis. 2d 323, 646 N.W.2d 314. It immunizes against liability for “legislative, quasi-legislative, judicial, and quasi-judicial acts, which have been collectively interpreted to include any act that involves the exercise of discretion and judgment.” Id., ¶ 21.
¶ 42. However, no immunity against liability exists for those acts associated with: (1) the performance of ministеrial duties imposed by law; (2) known and compelling dangers that give rise to ministerial duties on the part of public officers or employees; (3) acts involving medical discretion; and (4) acts that are malicious, willful, and intentional. Id., ¶ 24. Noffke argues that the first two exceptions apply to the case at hand.
1. Ministerial duty imposed by law
¶ 43. The first exception arises out of a recognition that discretionary acts are immune whereas ministerial acts are not protected by immunity. Id., ¶ 25. “A ministerial duty is one that ‘is absolute, certain and
¶ 44. For example, in Lodl, the plaintiff asserted that the police officer had a ministerial duty to manually control traffic at an intersection where traffic lights were no longer working. Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶¶ 6-8, 27. This court concluded that the applicable statute and the police department‘s policy did not confer a ministerial duty on the police officer to manually direct traffic. Id., ¶¶ 27-28. The statute at issue did not direct the officer to perform manual traffic control in any specific situation, and the policy only described manual traffic control procedures if the officer decided to manually control traffic. Id. Neither the statute nor the policy eliminated the officer‘s discretion as to when or where to undertake manual traffic control. Id., ¶¶ 28-31.
¶ 45. In the case at hand, the spirit rules do not eliminate the cheerleading coach‘s discretion. Moreover, the school district did not officially adopt the spirit rules. Nonetheless, Noffke asserts that the spirit rules required the cheerleading coach in this case to provide a spotter and mats. We disagree with Noffke‘s interpretation. The spirit rules leave a coach‘s discretion intact; they do not impose the type of ministerial duty that Noffke asserts because the spirit rules lack the absolute, certain, and imperative direction that prescribes and defines the time, mode, and occasion for the action‘s performance with such certainty that nothing remains for judgment or discretion.
¶ 46. First, the portion of the spirit rules that governs “Coaches’ Responsibilities” specifically states:
¶ 47. Second, the “General Risk Management” section also fails to confer an “absolute, certain and imperative” duty. Section four, article one of the spirit rules states that “[s]potters are required until a stunt (mount, pyramid, toss, tumbling skill) is mastered,” but article six states that “[a] spotter is required for stunts in which the supporting arm(s) of the base(s) is fully extended above the head....” In this case, the post-to-hands stunt does not even require a spotter because the base‘s hands are not fully extended above the head. In addition, while the cheerleaders in this case had not performed this stunt together, the record reflects that they had performed more difficult stunts, Noffke thought it was a “medium easy” stunt, both Noffke and Bakke thought they could do the stunt, Bakke was a
¶ 48. However, even if the spirit rules were interpreted as mandating a spotter in this case, the cheerleading coach did provide a spotter—Bakke. The spirit rules define a spotter as “a person who is in direct contact with the performing surface and may help control the building of, or dismounting from, a stunt. This person(s) shall not provide the primary support, meaning the stunt or pyramid would remain stable without the spotter(s).” In this case, Bakke was on the ground, he assisted in the building of the post-to-hands, and the stunt could remain stable without Bakke. Bakke was not the base, but rather, he served as the spotter to the stunt even though that stunt did not require a spotter.
¶ 49. Noffke argues that the rules impose a ministerial duty upоn the coach to make sure the spotter is in the right position in order to be considered a spotter. However, we do not interpret this provision as conferring an “absolute, certain and imperative” duty on the coach. While it is true that Bakke should have been standing in the back instead of the front, he was there as a spotter. Only two persons are required for this stunt, but the coach, as a safety precaution, required an extra person to be present and serve as an extra spotter.
¶ 50. Noffke also argues that the cheerleading coach violated a ministerial duty by failing to provide matting as required by the rules. We, however, disagree because any matting provision in the rule gives the cheerleading coach discretion and thus does not confer a ministerial duty. The comment to rule two, situation
¶ 51. Accordingly, we conclude that the spirit rules provide the cheerleading coach with a significant amount of discretion. The spirit rules provide discretion rather than conferring any absolute, certain, imperative, and therefore ministerial duty.
2. Ministerial duty arising out of a known and compelling danger
¶ 52. Noffke also argues that cheerleading, under the facts of this case, is a known and compelling danger that gives rise to a ministerial duty. This exception to immunity arises out of the theory that a known and compelling danger may be so dangerous that a public officer has a duty to act. Lodl, ¶¶ 33-34; Kierstyn v. Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 228 Wis. 2d 81, 596 N.W.2d 417, 95-96 (1999).
[A] public officer‘s duty is ministerial where a danger is known and of such quality that the public officer‘s duty to act becomes absolute, certain and imperative.... Stated otherwise, where a public officer‘s duty is not generally prescribed and defined by law in time, mode,
and occasion, such that nothing remains for judgment or discretion, circumstances may give rise to such a certain duty where ... the nature of the danger is compelling and known to the officer and is of such force that the public officer has no discretion not to act....
Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 34 (quotations and citations omitted).
¶ 53. This exception arose out of Cords v. Anderson, 80 Wis. 2d 525, 259 N.W.2d 672 (1977). In Cords, the plaintiffs fell into a steep, 90-feet-deep gorge while walking on a state park trail, which did not have any warning signs. Id. at 534-35, 541-42. The plaintiffs sued the park manager for failing to post warning signs even though he knew of the hazard. This court concluded that the known and compelling danger gave rise to a ministerial duty requiring the manager to post warning signs or advise his superiors of the hazardous condition. Id. at 541-42. A ministerial duty arosе because the danger was so clear and so absolute. Id. at 542.
¶ 54. The court of appeals most recently applied the known and compelling danger exception in Voss v. Elkhorn Area School District, 2006 WI App 234, 297 Wis. 2d 389, 724 N.W.2d 420. In Voss, students were learning about the effects of alcohol by wearing “fatal vision goggles.” Id., ¶ 2. When the goggles are worn, the situation is meant to replicate a .10 blood alcohol concentration. Id. While wearing the goggles, the teacher had students perform exercises such as walking in a straight line, shooting a ball at a garbage can, and standing on one leg. Id., ¶ 3. While participating in these exercises some of the students lost their balance, slipped or stumbled. Id. In addition to the above exercises, the teacher also arranged the classroom desks into three rows and instructed students to walk in
¶ 55. The court of appeals concluded that the known and compelling danger exception applied and thus precluded immunity. Id., ¶ 20. The court of appeals reasoned that despite the obvious hazards and knowledge of previous students falling, the teacher continued the exercise and took no precautions to minimize or prevent injury. Id., ¶ 19. Additionally, the court of appeals reasoned that in Voss, the teacher had only one reasonable choice to prevent or minimize danger, which was to stop the activity. Id., ¶ 20. The court of appeals contrasted the teacher‘s choice with the scenario that the police officer faced in Lodl. Recall that in Lodl, the police officer was called out to an intersection where traffic lights were no longer working. Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶¶ 6-8. This court concluded that “[w]hile the circumstances posed by the uncontrolled intersection were certainly known and dangerous, the situation nonetheless allowed for the exercise of the officer‘s discretion as to the mode of response.” Id., ¶ 46. As a result, the police officer did not have a ministerial duty to perform manual traffic control. Id. Rather, he could have chosen to control traffic with portable signs, flares, or flashing squad lights. Id., ¶ 47.
¶ 56. In the case at hand, the danger does not give rise to a ministerial duty because there is no known and
¶ 57. Again, Noffke argues that the coach did not act appropriately because she did not provide mats even though Bakke and Noffke had never before performed the stunt together. This assertion, however, sets forth a negligence argument rather than an argument that the danger gave rise to a ministerial duty. The immunity defense assumes negligence. Lodl, 253 Wis. 2d 323, ¶ 17. While arguably mats should be provided when cheerleaders are attempting any stunt for the first time, this is not relevant to our known and compelling danger anаlysis. As discussed before, mats were not a requirement. Here, the danger was not so known and compelling that the coach had no choice and no discretion but to provide mats for the cheerleaders.
V. CONCLUSION
¶ 58. Accordingly, we conclude that (1) pursuant to
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
¶ 59. SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. (concurring). I concur in the court‘s mandate but write separately to set forth a different analysis of the question whether cheerleading is a “sport involving amateur teams” for purposes of
¶ 60. The majority opinion resolves this vexing issue of statutory interpretation in one short paragraph, relying on dictionary definitions of the key statutory words “sport” and “teams.”1 Dictionaries may aid the court in determining the meaning of statutory words. But they do not in the present case. Dictionaries usually furnish more than one meaning to a word, and a court has to be careful not to select a friendly definition it likes from the many offered without explaining its choice. Thus resort to a dictionary can be, as Justice Scalia has written of the use of legislative history, “the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one‘s friends.”2
¶ 61. The dictionary definitions of “sport” and “teams” do not demonstrate whether cheerleading is “a sport involving amateur teams” for purposes of
¶ 62. Connoting competition, the definitions of “sport” and “team” yield equivocal results when applied to an activity such as cheerleading. Although organized cheerleading competitions do exist,7 cheerleaders tradi-
¶ 63. This court ordinarily gives statutory language “its ‘common, ordinary, and accepted meaning.‘”13 The dictionary definitions of “sport” and “team” do not demonstrate whether it is the common, ordinary, and accepted practice to regard cheerleading as a “sport involving amateur teams.” At best, the dictionaries demonstrate only that the statutory words “sport” and “team” can be used in reference to cheerleading and
¶ 64. It is hardly surprising that the dictionaries do not definitively determine whether cheerleading constitutes a “sport involving amateur teams.” Whether cheerleading should be considered a teаm sport has been a matter of public debate. Just this last September, a Washington Post article stated that “cheerleading is not officially considered a sport at most high schools and universities” and that “cheerleading in most states is not considered a sport; it‘s an ‘activity’ such as chess club and debating.”15 It would be very odd if the high schools, universities, and states that do not consider cheerleading a sport could discover the error of their ways simply by consulting a dictionary.
¶ 65. As I see this case, the statute‘s phrase “a sport involving amateur teams” must be interpreted in light of the legislature‘s express purpose of “decreas[ing] uncertainty regarding the legal responsibility for deaths or injuries that result from participation in recreational activities and thereby to help assure the continued availability in this state of enterprises that offer recreational activities to the public.”16
¶ 66.
¶ 67. Accordingly, because cheerleading can be construed as “a sport involving amateur teams” and such construction furthers the purpose of
¶ 68. I am authorized to state that Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY joins this opinion.
Notes
Inexplicably, the majority opinion skips over American Heritage‘s sports-specific definition of “team” in favor of an alternative definition that obviously is meant to apply in broader contexts: “a group organized to work together: a team of engineers.” Id. (italics in original). See also majority op., ¶ 17 (quoting this definition in part).
Although a cheerleading squad obviously represents “a group on the same side,” it is uncertain whether a cheerleading squad is “in a game” any more than the fans are. The squad in the present case cheers at high school basketball games. It could reasonably be stated that these basketball games involve only two teams (the ones that play basketball), not four teams as the defendants might appear to argue.