Clark v. University of Oregon
319 Or. App. 712 (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a negligence claim arising from a sports-related injury, the fact that an injury results from a risk inherent to the sport does not, as a matter of law, absolve a defendant of liability. The proper inquiry is whether the defendant's conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of harm, a question of fact typically reserved for the jury.
Facts:
- Crisshawn Clark, a junior college basketball player, was invited for an official recruiting visit to the University of Oregon.
- During dinner, Clark informed assistant coach Mike Mennenga that he had previously undergone arthroscopic surgery on both of his knees.
- Later that evening, Mennenga informed Clark that they would conduct a basketball workout the next morning.
- The next morning, Clark mentioned the upcoming workout to head coach Dana Altman, who did not object.
- Mennenga then had Clark perform several basketball drills while other coaches watched.
- For one drill, Mennenga instructed Clark to drive to the basket and intentionally collide with Mennenga, who was acting as a defender.
- On the fourth repetition of this collision drill, Mennenga bumped Clark's chest, causing Clark to lose his balance and tear his anterior cruciate ligament (ACL).
- The workout conducted by Mennenga was a violation of National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules.
Procedural Posture:
- Crisshawn Clark (plaintiff) sued the University of Oregon and five employees of its basketball program (defendants) in the Lane County Circuit Court, the trial court of first instance.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that as a matter of law, they could not be liable for an injury resulting from a normal risk of playing basketball.
- Plaintiff moved to amend his complaint and separately moved for summary judgment on the defendants' affirmative defense of comparative fault.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered a judgment of dismissal.
- The trial court also denied the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and his motion for summary judgment on the comparative fault defense.
- Clark (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed these rulings to the Oregon 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 plaintiff's participation in a sports activity, where an injury results from a risk inherent to that sport, preclude a negligence claim against the defendants as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Egan, J.
No. A plaintiff's participation in a sports activity does not, as a matter of law, prevent a negligence claim even if the injury results from a risk inherent to the sport. The controlling legal framework for negligence in Oregon, established in Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, focuses on whether the defendant's conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of harm to the plaintiff. The court rejected the defendants' argument that they had no duty to protect against injuries from the normal risks of basketball, explaining that Oregon's legislature abolished the doctrine of implied assumption of the risk, which can no longer be used as a complete defense even when reframed as an 'absence of duty.' Here, the defendants' conduct went beyond ordinary participation in a sport; they organized a workout that violated NCAA rules, knew of the plaintiff's prior knee surgeries, and specifically instructed him to perform a drill involving a physical collision with a coach. Whether this conduct was unreasonable and created a foreseeable risk of harm is a question for the jury to decide, making summary judgment for the defendants improper.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that Oregon's general foreseeability-based negligence standard, as articulated in Fazzolari, applies to sports-related injury cases without a special exception for 'inherent risks.' By rejecting a categorical 'no-duty' rule for sports activities, the court prevents defendants from using the inherent dangers of a sport as a legal shield to dismiss cases at the summary judgment stage. The ruling emphasizes that the reasonableness of a defendant's conduct is a fact-specific inquiry for the jury, ensuring that a defendant's specific actions—such as a coach's knowledge of a player's condition or violation of safety rules—will be scrutinized rather than being automatically excused as part of the game.
