Elias v. Davis
535 S.W.3d 737 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of official immunity protects public school coaches from liability for negligence claims arising from discretionary acts, such as determining how to conduct a practice, unless their conduct violates a specific rule, statute, or direct order. However, immunity does not apply to intentional torts, and whether a student-athlete consented to physical contact with an adult coach participating in a scrimmage is a question of fact for a jury.
Facts:
- Zachary Elias was a sixteen-year-old varsity football player at Winnetonka High School.
- Sterling Edwards was the team's head coach, and Kenneth Davis was a position coach.
- On October 19, 2010, during a team practice, Coaches Edwards and Davis decided to have Davis, a full-grown adult, participate in a live scrimmage.
- Davis dressed in a full football helmet and padding to act as a running back against the teenage players.
- Davis had never previously scrimmaged with the team in full pads.
- During a full-speed play, Elias, acting as a middle linebacker, moved to tackle Davis, who was carrying the football.
- In the ensuing collision between the adult coach and the teenage player, Elias's ankle was broken.
Procedural Posture:
- Zachary Elias sued coaches Kenneth Davis and Sterling Edwards in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri (trial court), alleging negligence and assault and battery.
- The coaches filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the negligence claim was barred by official immunity and the assault and battery claim was barred by consent.
- The trial court granted the coaches' motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- Elias, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the affirmative defenses of official immunity and consent bar negligence and assault and battery claims, respectively, brought by a high school football player who was injured after tackling his adult coach during a full-contact team scrimmage?
Opinions:
Majority - Pfeiffer, C.J.
Yes, as to the negligence claim; No, as to the assault and battery claim. Official immunity bars the negligence claim because the coaches' decision to conduct practice in a particular manner was a discretionary act not prohibited by any specific rule or order. However, consent does not bar the intentional tort claim as a matter of law because a genuine dispute of fact exists as to whether a student-athlete's participation in football constitutes consent to full-contact collisions with an adult coach. The court reasoned that official immunity protects public officials from liability for ordinary negligence during the performance of discretionary acts, which require the exercise of professional judgment. Conducting a football practice falls into this category. Since no statute, regulation, or departmental policy prohibited a coach from scrimmaging, their decision was discretionary and thus immune. In contrast, for the assault and battery claim, the court found that while players assume the foreseeable risks inherent to a sport, a collision with an adult coach is not necessarily a reasonably foreseeable risk of high school football. Factors such as the age and physical disparity, the coach's position of authority, and the unprecedented nature of the event create a triable issue for a jury to determine whether Elias actually consented to that specific contact.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the broad protection official immunity provides to public school coaches for their coaching decisions, classifying them as discretionary unless specifically constrained by a formal rule or order. However, the ruling significantly limits the scope of the consent and assumption of risk defenses in sports-related torts. It establishes that consent is not a blanket defense covering all activities during practice; rather, it is limited to the reasonably foreseeable risks of the sport, which may not include physical contact with non-participants like coaches. This decision creates a potential avenue for liability in unconventional training scenarios and underscores the importance for schools to establish clear policies regarding coach-player physical interaction.
