Sports and recreation providers, both public and private, have a legal duty to ensure that the facilities they use are suitable for the intended activity. Because providers have this legal obligation to keep users safe from unreasonable risks, it is essential that facility owners and employees conduct monthly, weekly or even daily inspections of their facilities.
That said, merely inspecting the facility is not enough. To satisfy their duty of care to the users of facilities, facility owners and service providers need to correct any dangerous condition as soon as it has been discovered, or limit access to the specific location until the problem has been corrected. A recent case that illustrates the importance of correcting dangerous playing surfaces is Garcia v. Newport-Mesa Unified School District CASE NO: 30-2022-01243554-CU-PO-CJC.
Traumatic brain injury
Emanuel “Manny” Garcia was a 15-year-old freshman at Corona del Mar High School in Newport Beach, Calif. As a member of the freshman football team, Garcia was participating in a full-contact practice conducted on one of the high school’s fields. During the practice, Garcia was attempting to catch the football when he experienced a helmet-to-helmet collision with another player. The collision sent Garcia crashing to the ground, and his head struck the playing surface. Even though Garcia was wearing a helmet at the time, he suffered catastrophic and permanent injuries, including — but not limited to — a severe traumatic brain injury, a large subdural hemorrhage and an intracranial bleed.
As a result of his injuries, Garcia sued the Newport-Mesa Unified School District, claiming that his injuries were a direct, proximate and legal result of the school district’s negligence in maintaining the field. The school district, Garcia argued, had a duty to maintain the field to a safe condition, had actual notice that the field was in a dangerous condition, and failed to make the field safe for athletes.
Specifically, Garcia argued that the field lacked adequate grass coverage, exposing the surface and hardening the soil. He claimed the field was not designed, planned, constructed, installed, inspected, maintained or repaired in a manner that was adequate to absorb the kind of shock associated with tackles and falls during football practices, and that its dangerous condition created a substantial risk of injury to athletes.
Moreover, Garcia claimed that the school district was negligent for failing to correct the field’s defects before his injury, despite numerous written and verbal warnings communicated to the principal and athletic director by coaches and parents complaining about the quality of the playing field. One piece of evidence produced in discovery to support Garcia’s claim was an email from the lacrosse coach to the athletic director, complaining that “the surface on which we are asking our student-athletes to practice and compete on a daily basis is bordering on unplayable. Our fields have steadfastly become a safety concern, a liability issue and an extremely poor representation of our school.”
Garcia also argued that the school district was negligent in failing to regularly inspect the field and address its repair and maintenance after the district became aware that the field posed a serious injury risk. Any reasonable field inspection and maintenance program implemented by the school district would have discovered the obviously dangerous condition in more than sufficient time ahead of Garcia’s injuries for the school district to repair, correct, remedy or warn of the danger. Therefore, Garcia claimed, the school district breached its duty to not increase the risks otherwise posed by high school football practices.
Argument, then settlement
In arguing that it was not negligent for Garcia’s injuries, the school district claimed that it conducted regular safety assessments and soil compaction tests on its fields. In addition, the school district noted that it had made substantial improvements to its athletics facilities and fields over the years and was dedicated to ongoing maintenance of the fields to ensure the success and safety of student-athletes.
After two years of discovery and legal maneuvering in the Orange County Superior Court of California, and before the case could go to trial, the school district decided to settle the case, paying Garcia $31 million for his injuries.
While there may be many reasons for a defendant in a lawsuit to settle a case before trial — the cost of settling is less than the nuisance cost of taking the case to court, for example — the most common reason is that the defendant fears losing at trial and leaving the damage award in the hands of a jury. In Garcia’s case, because of the evidence that the school district had notice of the poor condition of the field and failed to correct it for years, it is reasonable to believe that a jury could have easily found such actions negligent and awarded Garcia even more money.
Inspect, document, fix
Normally, this column prefers to report on cases that have been decided by the courts, enabling readers to learn how the courts apply the law to issues such as negligence. Though the parties in Garcia v. Newport-Mesa Unified School District settled the case for $31 million before it reached a jury, school and recreation facilities, both private or public, can still learn valuable lessons from the case.
First, the case reinforces the point that sports and recreation providers have a legal duty to ensure that facilities are suitable for their intended activity. By allowing participants to practice and play on surfaces that are in disrepair or are generally in a dangerous condition, facility owners and service providers have failed in their duty to provide a safe playing environment. By breaching their duty to not increase the risks inherent in the activity, the facility owners and service providers are inviting a negligence lawsuit.
Second, this case also makes it clear that facility owners and service providers have a duty to regularly inspect their facilities and playing surfaces for dangerous conditions before they are used. It is also important that these inspections are documented and kept on file in the event of a lawsuit.
A third lesson facility owners and service providers should take away from Garcia is that if a dangerous condition is discovered — a wet floor, a hole in the field, a surface that is unreasonably hard — it is essential that the facility owner or service provider repair, correct or otherwise remedy the dangerous condition immediately. If the condition cannot be corrected right away, facility owners or service providers have a duty to limit access to the location until the problem is corrected. While perhaps inconvenient for the facility, such actions are the only way to ensure the safety of all users — and to protect the facility owners and service providers from costly lawsuits.
