Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

Thomas V Hamilton Board of Education

Three Great Failures

Five Basic Elements

Common Questions

1. Proper instruction was provided

2. Supervision was provided

3. N/A

1. Thomas was 16, most experienced player, he has a high level of responsibility (Soc owed to self because he properly knows how to play)

2/3. Accurate, adequate instruction was provided for football has inherent risks

5. Football is dangerous

6. Signed form acknowledging inherent risks

7. There was supervision (coaches, refs)

8. Adequate amount of supervision was present

9. Injury was foreseeable

10. No personal prior accidents but football accidents are common

11. Plaintiff contributed to H/L as he didn't tackle properly

1. Doc existed as the coach (school board) is

an occupier and must protect safety of students

2. Hamilton and Thomas both owed Soc

3. Is a foreseeable injury as football is dangerous

4. There is a direct connection between plaintiffs conduct and the result in injury. There is a connection between the defendant and the result in injury as it occurred during a school event, but this connection isn't a direct contribution to injury

5. Contributory negligence from plaintiff as he didn't follow proper instruction

Summary

Damages

Defenses to negligence

Relation to Hall V Potts

Standard of Care

  • Contributory Negligence: Plaintiff contributed to own H/L because the plaintiff hasn't exercised a reasonable standard of care
  • VAR: Plaintiff understood inherent risk of activity and voluntarily undertook inherent risk of activity (signed permission form)
  • Supra Parent Standard "A chemistry teacher must have special qualifications"
  • Foreseeable injuries occurring at school

Thomas: Follow instructions given (proper tackling)

Hamilton: make sure players understand training and inherent risks. Provide a medical test and waiver

Non-Pecuniary:

a) Pain & Suffering- severe injury for the rest of Thomas' life

b) Loss of Enjoyment of Life- can no longer do many activities

Special Damages:

Installing wheelchair accessible equipment (ramp, stair climber, new car)

General Damages:

Future medical care, lost wages.

  • Jeffrey Thomas, 16 suffered a broken neck injury in a football game
  • He became a quadriplegic after he tackled an opposing player "helmet first" rather then using his shoulder
  • He was one of the most experienced player on the high school team and he also played in the city league where he was ranked most valuable offensive player
  • Football skills were taught as part of the regular classroom PE program and as an extra curricular activity at high schools
  • Games were coached by teachers selected by school principals. Students were eligible to play football if they provided a permission form signed by their parents and a medical certificate indication they were fit to play football.

Defendants Claim

  • Supra Parent Standard should only be applied in very special cases. High contact sports are not a special case. When playing a contact sport such as football you must sign a permission form acknowledging the inherent risks.

Plaintiffs Claim

  • Went through the "Supra Parent Standard"
  • The Supra Parent Standard advances the principle that in some situations, the danger is very great and the standard of training and expertise must be high
  • The plaintiff claimed the coaches need to be specially trained as football is a dangerous sport. They claimed the practice of using unqualified, volunteer coaches is negligence. They argued experienced, trained coaches should be selected. (must go beyond that of a careful parent standard)

Duty of Care

Thomas: must understand inherent risks (signed permission form and pass medical test to ensure own safety

Hamilton: provide proper training and knowledgeable coaches

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi