McQuiggan v. Boy Scouts of America
536 A.2d 137, 73 Md. App. 705 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A voluntary participant in a recreational activity assumes all risks that are obvious and foreseeable, and this assumption of risk is not terminated unless the participant overtly communicates their withdrawal from the activity to other participants in a way that is clear and unambiguous.
Facts:
- Nicholas McQuiggan, age 12, arrived at a Boy Scout meeting and observed several other scouts, including Billy Hamm and Kevin McDonnell, playing a game where they shot paper clips at each other with rubber bands.
- After watching for approximately ten minutes, Nicholas was asked to join the game and did so voluntarily.
- Nicholas understood that the object of the game was to hit others with paper clips and that by participating, he could be hit.
- He found an elastic hair band and chased Billy and Kevin down a hallway.
- Billy and Kevin then turned and chased Nicholas back into the meeting room.
- Upon entering the room, Nicholas dropped the hair band and internally decided to stop playing, but he did not verbally or otherwise communicate this intention to the other boys.
- Approximately five seconds after making his uncommunicated decision to quit, a paper clip shot by one of the other boys struck Nicholas in his right eye, causing injury.
- Nicholas's entire active involvement in the game lasted about thirty seconds.
Procedural Posture:
- Nicholas McQuiggan, by his guardian, filed a tort action against the Boy Scouts of America, local scoutmasters, and two fellow scouts in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland (a state trial court).
- The complaint alleged negligent supervision against the adult defendants and assault and battery against the minor defendants.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case during the trial, the trial judge granted a motion for judgment in favor of all defendants.
- Nicholas McQuiggan (appellant) then appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (an intermediate appellate court).
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 participant in a game who voluntarily joins, understands the risks, and is subsequently injured, assume the risk of that injury as a matter of law, even if they subjectively decided to stop playing moments before the injury without effectively communicating that decision to other participants?
Opinions:
Majority - Gilbert, Chief Judge
Yes. A participant who voluntarily joins a game with understood risks assumes the risk of injury, and this assumption is not negated by a subjective, uncommunicated decision to withdraw moments before the injury occurs. The court applied the three-part test for assumption of the risk: (1) knowledge of the risk, (2) appreciation of the risk, and (3) voluntary exposure. Nicholas met all three elements: he watched the game and knew its purpose, he admitted knowing there was a chance he would be hit, and he joined freely. The court held that knowledge and appreciation are judged by an objective standard; being hit in the eye with a projectile was an obvious and foreseeable risk of the game, not an unusual danger a twelve-year-old could not appreciate. Nicholas's argument that he had withdrawn from the game failed because his subjective intent was not communicated to the other players. His actions of dropping the hair band and walking into the room, occurring just five seconds before the injury, were insufficient to manifest his withdrawal, so the other participants reasonably believed he was still playing. Therefore, he had legally consented to the contact and assumed the risk of the resulting injury.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the objective standard in tort law for both assumption of risk and consent. It clarifies that a plaintiff's secret intentions are legally irrelevant; withdrawal from a risky activity must be manifested through overt acts that a reasonable person would understand as a cessation of participation. The ruling establishes that a participant remains subject to the assumed risks of a game until they have effectively communicated their withdrawal to others. This precedent is significant for personal injury cases arising from informal sports and recreational activities, emphasizing that voluntary participants have a high bar to overcome to shift liability for foreseeable injuries.
Unlock the full brief for McQuiggan v. Boy Scouts of America