GARNETT vs THE KOFFMANS

FACTS OF THE CASE

when it happened?

• In the fall of 2000, Andrew W. Koffman, a 13-year old middle school student at a public school in Botetourt County, began participating on the school's football team. It was Andy's first season playing organized football, and he was positioned as a third-string defensive player
• James Garnett was employed by the Botetourt County School Board as an assistant coach for the football team and was responsible for the supervision, training and instruction of the team's defensive players

why did it happen?

• The team lost its first game of the season. Garnett was upset by the defensive players' inadequate tackling in that game and became further displeased by what he perceived as inadequate tackling during the first practice following the loss.
• Garnett ordered Andy to hold a football and "stand upright and motionless" so that Garnett could explain the proper tackling technique to the defensive players.

"It's about to go down"

• Garnett, without further warning, thrust his arms around Andy's body, lifted him "off his feet by two feet or more," and "slammed" him to the ground!!! .
• Andy weighed 144 pounds, while Garnett weighed approximately 260 pounds. The force of the tackle broke the humerus bone in Andy's left arm. During prior practices, no coach had used physical force to instruct players on rules or techniques of playing football

brought to the court

• Andy and his parents (collectively "the Koffmans") alleged that “Andy was injured as a result of Garnett's simple and gross negligence and intentional acts of assault and battery.” In response, Garnett argued that the Koffmans had not alleged “sufficient facts to support a lack of consent to the tackling demonstration and, therefore, did not plead causes of action for either gross negligence, assault, or battery.”
• The trial court agreed with Garnett and dismissed the case. In so doing, the trial court held that, under state law, “Garnett, as a school board employee, was entitled to sovereign immunity for acts of simple negligence.” Further, the trial court found the facts alleged by the Koffmans were “insufficient to state causes of action for gross negligence, assault, or battery because the instruction and playing of football are ‘inherently dangerous and always potentially violent’." The Koffmans appealed to the state supreme court.

Untitled Slide

• As the trial court observed, receiving an injury while participating in a tackling demonstration may be part of the sport. The facts alleged in this case, however, go beyond the circumstances of simply being tackled in the course of participating in organized football.
• The state supreme court then considered whether the Koffmans had alleged sufficient facts to support their claims of assault and battery.

law

• The tort of assault consists of an act intended to cause either harmful or offensive contact with another person or apprehension of such contact, and that creates in that other person's mind a reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 21 (1965) The tort of battery is an unwanted touching which is neither consented to, excused, nor justified.

Untitled Slide

• Having found the Koffmans had alleged sufficient facts “to establish a cause of action for the tort of battery,” as well as claims of gross negligence, the state supreme court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Garnett and remanded (i.e., sent back] the case to the trial court for “further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

dissenting opinion

• While agreeing with the majority opinion that the Koffmans had alleged sufficient facts to proceed with a claim of gross negligence, the dissenting judge in this case found insufficient evidence to support a claim for battery. In so doing, the dissenting judge reminded the majority “acts that might give rise to a battery on a city street will not do so in the context of the sport of football.”
• In this particular instance, however, the dissenting judge found no evidence that “the tackle itself violated any rule or usage of the sport of football. The dissenting judge found the alleged battery was still within the participant’s scope of consent to bodily contacts permitted by the rules and usages of football.

measures to prevent

• A football coach cannot be expected to extract from the game the body clashes that cause bruises, jolts and hard falls. Instead, a coach should ensure that players are able to withstand the shocks, blows and other rough treatment with which they would meet in actual play by making certain that players are in sound physical condition, are issued proper protective equipment, and are taught and shown how to handle themselves while in play. The instruction on how to handle themselves during a game should include demonstrations of "proper" tackling techniques.

the end

Untitled Slide