Personal Injury Accident Lawsuit by Plaintiff Who Fell on a Basketball
Court at School*
Personal Injury
Accident Lawsuit Summary:
This is a case review of a hearing on three
Motions for Summary Judgment filed by three separate defendants in the
same lawsuit. The suit was originally filed by a young
woman and
her father.
In the suit,
they contended the young woman was seriously
injured at a basketball clinic during one of the required running
drills.
The lawsuit also claimed that the injuries were a
direct result of negligence
on the part of the corporation which owned the basketball clinic, the
man who actually operated the clinic, and the owner of the premises
where the clinic was operated.
Subsequent to the filing of the personal injury
accident lawsuit, all three
defendants filed
their respective Motions for Summary Judgment. Each party argued they
should be “dismissed” from the lawsuit.
Statement of Facts...
On February 1st, 2011, Mary Shy was brought by her
father Ron Shy to
a summer basketball clinic named Starts Basketball Clinic, Inc. The
clinic was owned and operated by a local basketball coach
named John Watson. “Coach”, as he was referred to
by all who knew him, began the clinic ten years earlier as a way for
young woman to improve their basketball skills during a three week
intensive summer training clinic.
The clinic’s purpose was to provide a level of
training in
basketball skills over and above the training available at the high
school level. The clinic was competitive and was much sought after by
many young female high school athletes.
Approximately
three weeks into the clinic, on February 22nd, the
plaintiff Shy was injured
while participating in a group running drill.
The drill had required participants to line up at
the basketball
court’s baseline and to stretch their arms out on both sides. As
each participant touched the fingertips of the other’s hand,
they established the distance each was required to stay away from the
other during the ensuing drill.
When the coach blew his whistle the participants
were to begin a
sprint all the way down the basketball court. Once there, the coach
would blow his whistle again, and the sprint would begin in the other
direction.
Shy was leading the other participants in the
first two sprints. As
the coach’s whistle blew and Shy was a few steps into her fourth
sprint, another young
woman came out of her lane and collided with Shy,
knocking Shy to the ground. Shy immediately began to cry
out in pain.
In an attempt to break her fall, Shy had stuck out her arm and hit her
elbow on the floor of the gymnasium.
Once he heard Shy's cries, Coach stopped the drill
and ran to render
aid. By now other runners were also trying to comfort her. Coach called
911, and fire and ambulance responded within minutes. Shy was
transported to the local emergency room where she underwent an MRI
exam, a CAT scan, and a series of X-rays.
The results
confirmed Mary suffered a fracture to the bones which
formed her elbow as well as a tearing of the adjoining ligaments,
tendons, and surrounding muscle tissue.
After the accident, Shy’s father’s attorney
investigated the circumstances leading up to the collision. He learned
from several participants that although the runners were originally
told to keep at arm's length during each sprint, many did not. Several
runners told Shy’s attorney the runner who collided with Shy
continually refused to stay at arm's length from the other runners.
Shy’s father was quite upset with his daughter's
injuries. He
knew his daughter Mary was being scouted by several colleges who may
have been considering offering her athletic scholarships. With her
recent injuries and inability to play her final season, Shy’s
father was convinced the injuries would result in Mary’s
elimination from contention for those scholarships.
Ron Shy filed a personal injury accident lawsuit
against Starts
Basketball Clinic, Inc., its owner and operator, Coach John Watson, and
St. Catherine's High School.
The lawsuit contended all three defendants
individually and collectively were negligent, and
that negligence
resulted in the injuries to his daughter Mary. The plaintiffs argued it
was the job of the clinic, the coach and St. Catherine's to ensure that
the running drill was conducted safely and that all the runners had
adequate space to run.
The Hearing...
All three defendants argued the plaintiff Mary Shy
and her father
should take nothing and the lawsuit against all three be dismissed.
Specifically, they argued that Shy, by registering
for, and
voluntarily participating in, the basketball clinic knew the sport was
a “contact” sport, and that in contact sports
participant athletes are sometimes inadvertently injured.
They
also argued that by agreeing
to participate in the clinic Mary Shy and her father “assumed
the risk” inherent in all contact sports. As a result the
defendants owed
no duty other than to supervise the clinic and its
exercises in a reasonable and prudent manner.
Each defendant also offered arguments as to why
they, individually,
should not be liable:
- The Coach argued that he should be personally
non-suited from the
personal injury accident lawsuit because he was protected by the
corporation he created to operate: Starts Basketball Clinic,
Inc.
- The Clinic argued the unfairness of holding it
liable for the
plaintiff’s injuries since Shy had assumed the risk of
participating in the clinic.
- St Catherine’s argued they were an
“innocent” party, contending
all they did was rent the space to the coach and the clinic. If they
had reason to believe Coach was not properly supervising the
participants St. Catherine’s would have intervened. Without
that knowledge, they couldn't be held liable for Shy’s
injuries.
Outcome...
The Court found under normal circumstances the
formation of a
corporation will shield an owner, officer or shareholder from personal
liability. But in this
personal injury accident lawsuit the court felt it had to
“pierce
the corporate veil."
The Court
said if Coach
left the Clinic in the hands of those persons employed to teach or
instruct, and a participant was unintentionally injured the court would
have upheld the corporation’s legal protections for the
Coach.
In this case though, the court ruled Coach was an
active participant
in the plaintiff’s training, and as such could not be permitted
to stand behind the corporate veil of protection.
St. Catherine’s contention of having leased
without incident
their premises
to the Clinic and the Coach for ten years lead the court
to believe they acted prudently when leasing the space.
The Court
therefore granted St Catherine’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
dismissed the plaintiff's personal injury accident lawsuit against it.
Alternatively,
the Court found the Starts
Basketball Clinic, Inc.
and Coach John Warren’s actions raised triable issues of fact,
and those issues should be heard in a full trial. Therefore the motion
as to these defendants was denied.
Important
Points...
- When some corporations are
formed, usually those
which are
“Subchapters
S”, the law normally
allows that
corporation to shield the owners, officers and shareholders from
personal liability. Under certain circumstances, that
“corporate
veil” can be
pierced.
- “Assumption of the Risk” is a
legal benchmark
upon which injured parties must be judged. If, while an
active
participant in a sporting event, a participant is injured, the
party’s “assumption of the risk” will often bar
that person from recovery for his injuries through a personal injury
accident lawsuit.
|
|
*This
case example is for educational purposes only. It is based on actual
events although names have been changed to protect those involved. Any
resemblance to real persons or entities is purely coincidental.
|
Return
from Personal Injury Accident Lawsuit to Personal
Injury Claim
Return
from Personal Injury Accident Lawsuit to Personal
Injury Settlement Guide
The accuracy of information on this site is not guaranteed. Information on this site is strictly opinion and should not be considered formal legal advice. Under no circumstances should the information on this site be used to make decisions about the proper course of a legal matter. Click below to read our full User Agreement, Disclaimer and Copyright Information.

|