Benitez v. New York City Board of Education
543 N.Y.S.2d 29, 541 N.E.2d 29, 73 N.Y.2d 650 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A board of education, its employees, agents, and organized athletic councils must exercise ordinary reasonable care to protect student athletes voluntarily involved in extracurricular sports from unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased risks, while participants are generally held to assume known, apparent, or reasonably foreseeable risks inherent in the sport.
Facts:
- Benitez, a 19-year-old senior star athlete, played varsity football for George Washington High School (GW) and had received numerous college scholarship offers.
- The Public Schools Athletic League (PSAL) assigned GW to Division A prior to the 1982 season, despite GW's administrative appeals arguing that Division A was 'potentially dangerous' and players might 'suffer serious injuries'.
- Before the 1983 season, GW again sought reassignment to Division B, citing safety concerns and injuries from the 1982 season, but PSAL denied the request.
- GW’s coach advised the school's principal to drop the football program following the denial, but was told such action would result in barring all GW athletic teams from interscholastic competition for the year.
- Prior to the 1983 game against John F. Kennedy High School (JFK), GW’s coach and assistant principal advised the principal that the game was a mismatch and should not be played due to high injury risk, but the principal decided to proceed.
- Benitez played voluntarily, was fully trained in proper blocking techniques, and regularly played the great majority of plays for his team's offensive, defensive, and special squads.
- Benitez suffered a broken neck injury during the 1983 GW-JFK game while correctly executing a block during a kick-off return, and conceded he was fatigued but had not informed his coach.
Procedural Posture:
- Benitez initiated a personal injury action against the New York City Board of Education, its Public Schools Athletic League (PSAL), and the City of New York in trial court, alleging negligence.
- The Trial Justice dismissed the case against the City of New York prior to submitting the case to the jury.
- The Trial Justice instructed the jury that the defendants were obligated to exercise the same level of care 'as a parent of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same circumstances'.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Benitez, apportioning 30% of the fault against him and 70% against the defendants.
- The Trial Justice granted, in part, a post-verdict motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, dismissing the negligence theories related to GW's placement and retention in Division A as discretionary determinations, but declined to dismiss the remaining negligence theories (allowing Benitez to play while fatigued).
- The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for Benitez in the sum of $878,330 in a split decision.
- The Appellate Division subsequently granted the Board and PSAL leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.
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 a board of education and its athletic organizations owe a student voluntarily participating in interscholastic sports the heightened duty of a prudent parent, or the lesser duty of ordinary reasonable care, regarding injuries sustained during competition?
Opinions:
Majority - Bellacosa, J.
No, a board of education and its athletic organizations do not owe a student voluntarily participating in interscholastic sports the heightened duty of a prudent parent; rather, they owe a duty of ordinary reasonable care to protect student athletes from unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased risks. The court found that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury with the more protective 'prudent parent' standard of care, which is applicable in contexts like compulsory physical education, but not to wholly voluntary interscholastic athletic endeavors, where the less demanding 'ordinary reasonable care' standard applies. While assumption of risk is not an absolute defense, it serves as a measure of the defendant’s duty of care, holding participants to the risks of 'injury-causing events which are known, apparent or reasonably foreseeable consequences of the participation.' The court held that a high school athlete, even an outstanding one, does not fall within the class warranting strict parental duties. The theory of 'inherent compulsion,' which could negate assumption of risk, was not supported by evidence; Benitez played voluntarily, did not communicate concerns about enhanced risks to his coach, and was not directed to disregard a risk he would not have otherwise assumed. The court concluded that Benitez's injury was a 'luckless accident arising from the vigorous voluntary participation in competitive interscholastic athletics' and not a consequence of a failed duty of care by the defendants.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for clarifying the standard of care owed by educational institutions and athletic organizations to student athletes in voluntary extracurricular sports in New York, definitively establishing 'ordinary reasonable care' over the stricter 'prudent parent' standard. It reinforces the importance of the assumption of risk doctrine, emphasizing that participants consent to obvious and foreseeable dangers inherent in competitive athletics, which serves to facilitate vigorous participation. The ruling also provides a critical interpretation of 'inherent compulsion,' setting a high bar for proving that a student was compelled to act despite known risks, thus limiting school liability for injuries arising from the inherent nature of sports.
