Acosta v. Los Angeles Unified School District
31 Cal. App. 4th 471, 37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 171, 95 Daily Journal DAR 487 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The governmental immunity for injuries sustained during a "hazardous recreational activity" under Government Code § 831.7 does not apply to school-sponsored and supervised extracurricular athletic activities.
Facts:
- Omar Acosta was a member of the Hamilton High School gymnastics team.
- During the gymnastics off-season, Acosta was practicing a new, difficult maneuver on the high bar called the 'front catch' in the Hamilton High School gymnasium.
- The practice took place in the evening and was supervised by Louis Thomas, an assistant gymnastics coach for the school.
- The practice was a structured training session for team members using school-provided equipment, and Coach Thomas had suggested Acosta learn the new maneuver.
- While attempting the maneuver, Acosta missed the bar, fell, landed on his neck, and was rendered quadriplegic.
Procedural Posture:
- Omar Acosta sued the Los Angeles Unified School District (district) in a California trial court.
- A jury returned a special verdict finding the district's coach was negligent but also that Acosta was engaged in a 'hazardous recreational activity' and the coach was not grossly negligent.
- Based on the jury's verdict, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the district.
- Acosta filed motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
- The trial court granted Acosta's motion for a new trial on limited issues but denied the JNOV.
- The district appealed the order granting a new trial, and Acosta filed a cross-appeal from the judgment and the partial denial of his post-trial motions to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the statutory immunity granted to public entities for injuries arising from a "hazardous recreational activity" under Government Code § 831.7 immunize a school district from liability for injuries sustained by a student during an off-season, school-sponsored athletic practice supervised by a coach on school property?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
No. The immunity for "hazardous recreational activities" under Government Code § 831.7 is inapplicable to school-sponsored and supervised extracurricular activities. California law has long established that a school district has a duty to exercise reasonable care in supervising students, and this duty extends to extracurricular activities, which are an integral part of education. To interpret the statute as immunizing schools for negligent supervision of their athletic programs would be a major overthrow of established legal principles, which the Legislature did not clearly intend. A clear distinction exists between the public's recreational use of school facilities and a structured, school-sponsored athletic practice under the supervision of school personnel, even if participation is voluntary or occurs during the off-season. The undisputed facts demonstrate that Acosta was engaged in such a school-sponsored activity, making the immunity statute inapplicable as a matter of law.
Dissenting - Woods, J.
The issue should be a question of fact for a jury. The majority errs by deciding as a matter of law that the activity was school-sponsored, thereby depriving the school district of a trial on a disputed factual issue. Several facts suggest the activity could be seen as recreational rather than school-sponsored: it occurred during the off-season, was not required, community members were present, and the gym was open for community use under state law. The trial judge correctly identified that a jury, with proper instructions, should determine whether the activity was "school-sponsored" (no immunity) or "recreational" (immunity applies). The case presents a factual dispute that should be resolved by a trier of fact, not an appellate court.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the broad governmental immunity for hazardous recreational activities provided by § 831.7. It solidifies the principle that a school's supervisory duty to its students is paramount and extends to organized extracurriculars, which are considered part of the educational mission. The ruling prevents school districts from using the statute as a shield against liability for negligent supervision in their athletic programs. Future litigation in this area will likely focus on the factual line distinguishing a truly "school-sponsored" activity from mere recreational use of school property by students or community members.
