BASKETBALL PLAYER WHO RUNS INTO BENCH WHEN DIVING
OUT-OF-BOUNDS FOR LOOSE BALL CANNOT RECOVER DAMAGES FOR INJURIES RECEIVED
Athletes in all sports may not, in general, sue for an
injury they sustain during the course of competition. The basic legal rule
on this subject is that by agreeing to compete in a particular sport, the
athlete has agreed to consent to any injury he or she might sustain in the
ordinary play of that sport.
For example, if a baseball player gets hit in the face
by a ball that takes an odd bounce and the ball breaks his nose, the player
cannot sue his team, the opposing team, the stadium or field managers, etc.,
because balls taking odd bounces are a normal part of baseball and the
player should have been prepared for such a possibility when he agreed to
participate in a baseball game. Conversely, an athlete may sue for injuries
he or she receives that are not a normal or expected part of the sport. If a
golfer, for example, begins to putt, but is prevented from putting when
another player runs on to the green and tackles him, the putter could
probably sue the other player for any injuries caused by the tackle since
tackling is not a part of the sport of golf. However, a football player
could not sue another player for any injuries he receives from a tackle
since tacking in football is, so to speak, par for the course.
This basic legal principle was recently demonstrated
once again in a court case involving a high school basketball player in
Louisiana. Timothy Smith was a player on the 2001-2002 Dunham High School
(Baton Rouge, La.) varsity basketball team. During an away game at The
Runnels School (Baton Rouge, La.) on November 24, 2001, Smith dove for a
loose ball that went out-of-bounds along an endline, near one of the corners
of the court. Smith’s momentum took him well past the endline and caused
him to crash into a wooden bench that was placed approximately nine-feet
beyond the endline. The bench had been placed in that location to prevent
players and other individuals from running into a large glass trophy case
located against the wall beyond the basketball court’s endline. Smith
suffered an injury to his shoulder during the incident. A player for The
Runnels School also dove for the same ball, but he missed the bench and was
uninjured. Smith sued The Runnels School for negligence in placing the
bench close to the basketball court and thereby, he alleged, causing it to
be “an unreasonable risk of harm” to the players.
At trial, The Runnels School contended that the
placement of the bench was not an unreasonable risk of harm to the players
because (1) the placement of the bench in that location was permitted by the
official rules for high school basketball in the State of Louisiana, and (2)
the bench was placed in that location in order to prevent players from
crashing into a large glass trophy case and sustaining possibly very serious
injuries. The Louisiana state court noted, “There is a high risk of serious
injury in the sport itself [basketball], simply because of its intensely
competitive nature and the fast-paced physical action. Everyone involved in
the game participates with an awareness of this danger.”
The court found that the “awareness of this danger”
included the possible risks posed by the placement of the bench in front of
the trophy case because the official rules of Louisiana high school
basketball permit benches to be placed in such locations and Smith, as a
high school basketball player who willingly chose to participate in the
sport, was aware or should have been aware of those rules. The court found
that Louisiana high school basketball—including the game between Dunham and
The Runnels School—is governed by the rules specified by the Louisiana High
School Athletic Association (LHSAA), and the LHSAA designates the rules
written by the National Federation of State High School Athletic
Associations (NFSHSAA) as the official rules for high school basketball in
the state. The court noted that under the rules promulgated by the NFSHSAA,
there must be at least three feet of unobstructed space outside the endlines
of a basketball court, and that the Runnels School and Smith agreed that
there was at least eight feet, eleven inches of unobstructed space from the
endline to the bench in front of the trophy case. Consequently, the court
held that The Runnels School had not violated the official rules of
basketball by placing the bench in that location. Furthermore, the court
found that The Runnels School had placed the bench in that specific location
to protect players from suffering far greater injuries if they should crash
into the School’s glass trophy case. In that sense, Smith may well have
benefited from The Runnels School’s placement of the bench rather than be
harmed by it. The court found that The Runnels School had not acted
negligently and entered judgment in its favor.
The case is Smith v. The Runnels Schools, Inc.,
2004 La. App. 1329, 907 So.2d 109 (2005).
