Seth Greenberg Suit

[Rudy]

The story linked on the front page seemed to imply there was no liability but a link in that story suggests there were some industry standards not met by the playing conditions.
http://www.newsleader.com/article/20110413/SPORTS/104130321/1061/LIFESTYLE1002/Hokies-coach-sued-over-camper-s-injury?odyssey=nav|head
I would expect that Seth would have incorporated his summer camp operation and therefore insulated himself from personal liability. If the reports are correct that standards were not met re distance to walls from the baseline and height from the floor where padding should start, I would think there's some exposure to a verdict here. The sub-standard refereeing claim is bogus, though.

[davekay1971]

The whole thing sounds like a tragedy, and I really feel for the kid and his family. I hope the best for him.

That said, looking purely at the question of damages: not that there's any legal relevance to common sense, but the common sense side of me asks a basic question: did the kid not see the wall there?

I played in several gyms during junior high and high school ball where the back wall was just a few feet past the baseline and unpadded. You changed your play a little with that in mind to avoid hitting the wall. It was just common sense to prevent injury. My high school gym was like that, and did eventually put up some padding, which is the right thing to do. But, until that time, we played, played hard, and just took some basic precautions to not hit the wall!

Just to reiterate: the above 2 paragraphs regarding the question of liability (again, not being a lawyer, I look at this from a common sense point of view which probably has no legal relevance) do not detract from my sympathy for both the injured kid and his family!

[Turtleboy]

That Pink Floyd joke by DBR was in pretty bad taste considering the kid suffered brain injuries.

[Bojangles4Eva]

The walls are pretty close to the baseline in War Memorial, but I've been in plenty gyms where they are just as close if not closer...I went to undergrad at VA Tech, and during senior year intramural BBall (games played in War Memorial) on a fast break I was literally shoved in the back going full speed in an attempt for the other team to stop the layup. I ended up slamming my kneecap into the cinder (or cynder?) block wall on the baseline, where there was no padding. I had a badly bruised knee, and was very lucky I didn't hit my head like this kid.

Point is, mistakes like that happen, and while its definitely a good idea to always pad a baseline wall, playing any sport has a risk of serious injury, so can you really sue for something like that? And how is that Greenburg's fault?

[uh_no]

That Pink Floyd joke by DBR was in pretty bad taste considering the kid suffered brain injuries.

He fully recovered, but still probably not best of taste...

[Rudy]

The main legal principles would be part of what's called "premises liability" and "assumption of risk". Under premises liability a commercial proprietor (certainly including an operator of a summer basketball camp) owes a duty to its customers to provide a reasonably safe premises for the purposes of the commercial visit. (Think of a restaurant with a staircase that does not comply with the state's building code.) The Plaintiff's lawyers will argue that the standards they cite provide a standard for safe operation of a a basketball operation. Beyond that they have to show that the sub-standard conditions caused the injury complained of. (The main reason that the sub-promised referee situation cannot likely be a cause of this injury.)

The assumption of risk argument is that a player assumes the risk of injury such as this, since he can see where the wall is and has a duty of his own of ordinary care to avoid the risks he can see. But the assumption of risk argument needs a finding that the risk assumed was known to the injured party.

I would say (without reading case precedent in Virginia) that the case would be a long shot for the plaintiff but it would likely get to a jury to make the ultimate decision and who can really predict what a jury would do with a brain injury case? Hence, my conclusion that there is exposure in the case.

I see it as similar to the ski slope injury cases in Virginia. One of them in 2004 returned a verdict of $8.3 million in a brain injury case when the skier ran into a grooming machine on the slopes The slope operator argued that she assumed the risk of an inherently dangerous activity and that she had been warned of machines on the slope. The jury didn't agree. As an interesting sideline story, the big law firm representing the slope operator blew the appeal by failing to file the trial transcript on time and was sued for malpractice. The slope operator (or its insurer) couldn't prove the appeal would have been successful, so the malpractice case failed.


Because Grigg [the injured party] was an invitee on [ski slope] Wintergreen's premises, Instruction 16 permitted the jury to find that Wintergreen, as the occupant of the premises, failed to exercise ordinary care in rendering the premises reasonably safe for Grigg's visit or failed to warn of unsafe conditions that were known to it and unknown to Grigg. Violation of these duties supports an independent basis of liability against Wintergreen, separate and apart from Wintergreen's responsibility for any alleged negligence perpetrated by [grooming machine operators]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-supreme-court/1538347.html

[David]

Was anyone else surprised by the following line from the family's attorney (Yost)? I took this directly from the link provided by the DBR:


Yost said he filed the lawsuit because of Virginia Tech's lack of movement. "We were hoping they would settle," he said. "They haven't negotiated with me at all."

I know nothing about the legal issues around this case, but that strikes me as a terrible quote. Even though everyone probably knows the family is looking for a settlement, why would you directly signal this to the defendant, possible jurors, the press, etc?

[cspan37421]

IANAL but liability waivers are really common for summer camps. That said, I've heard more than one lawyer point out that there are some responsibilities you can't shirk by having someone sign a waiver.

My son has played in a Y league that used a very old (maybe Hoover era) middle school gym in which 3 sides were surrounded by brick wall just a couple of feet from the sidelines. There were a couple of large pads centered at each end of the court, but IIRC none along the long sideline and none in the corners, etc. I always worried about kids getting hurt there, and IIRC one day one did, but not his head, thankfully.

David makes an excellent point, that quote does not portray the plaintiff in the most favorable light.

[Rudy]

I know nothing about the legal issues around this case, but that strikes me as a terrible quote. Even though everyone probably knows the family is looking for a settlement, why would you directly signal this to the defendant, possible jurors, the press, etc?

Maybe I'm jaded from working in the personal injury litigation world for over 30 years, mostly on the defense side, but I found the quote completely unremarkable.

When someone suffers a long-term or permanent injury through the negligence or fault of another the only thing one can get out of a claim or lawsuit is monetary compensation. You can't turn back the clock and make the injury disappear. It is not unusual to present the claim to the perceived wrongdoer before filing suit and presenting an offer of settlement to avoid the expense to both parties of filing, pursuing and defending a lawsuit. In fact, when one of the wrongdoers is a state agency formal notice must be made within set period after the injury before suit can be filed.

Hopefully few of our readers begrudge three former Duke lacrosse players from seeking and receiving substantial monetary settlements from Duke for the misdeeds of University employees without formally filing suit. Had Duke elected to stonewall those boys' attorneys suits would have been filed and such a quote could easily have come from one of their lawyers.

The quote was probably a shortened version of something like this: "We presented the claim to Virginia Tech and its representatives including a full description of the injuries and expenses incurred by _____ and his family and including a description of why we think Tech and ______ are responsible for making ________ and his family whole to the extent possible. Tech denied all responsibility for this injury and therefore filing suit was necessary. We were hoping they would settle for a reasonable amount so we wouldn't have to file suit and make all of this public, but they haven't negotiated with me at all."

[David]

Maybe I'm jaded from working in the personal injury litigation world for over 30 years, mostly on the defense side, but I found the quote completely unremarkable.

Rudy - thanks for your response and your perspective. I certainly don't begrudge the family their right to seek a monetary settlement and I am not surprised by the stonewalling of the defendant. However, I still feel the quote came across poorly. As you suggest, the line in question was probably lifted from a broader quote, but I still can't ever recall reading something like that at this stage.