In the case of Campagna-McGuffin v. Diva Gymnastics Academy, Inc., 2022-Ohio-3885, the Appellate Court held that the assumption of the risk doctrine was applicable in an action brought by the parents of children who were injured during gymnastics conditioning.
There are three standards that permit recovery for injuries received during sports and recreation activities: (1) intentional tort; (2) willful or reckless misconduct; and (3) negligence. However, a defendant can show that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury through participating in an inherently dangerous activity either expressly, primarily, or impliedly; thereby absolving their liability for negligence. Primary assumption of the risk relieves a recreation provider from any duty to eliminate the foreseeable and customary risks that are inherent in the activity, because such risks cannot be eliminated. Express assumption of the risk bars recovery where the recreational participant makes a conscious decision to waive recovery rights in a contract for damages or injury caused by negligence, except when it is caused by willful or wanton misconduct.
Here, the parents argued that the gymnastics coaches made their daughters perform excessive conditioning as a form of punishment, thereby breaching the United States of America Gymnastics (“USAG”) rules and duties to teach, train, and instruct. As a result, they allege their daughters retained physical injuries and brought claims for negligence, negligent supervision, and bodily injury with mental anguish. The gymnastics school and coaches raised the affirmative defense of assumption of the risk. The Court agreed with the gymnastics school and coaches.
In support of its decision, the Court reasoned that the daughters’ depositions were inconsistent with their deposition testimony and their parents’ testimony regarding their claims of physical and emotional injuries, and thus neither the affidavits of the parents nor daughters were able to be relied on. Also, the alleged injuries were observed to be common amongst those engaging in gymnastics at a high level, and thus the Court found that the primary assumption of the risk doctrine applied to bar the parents’ negligence claims. Further, the Court found that the parents signed a release waiving their rights to recover from negligence, and no willful or wanton misconduct took place. Lastly, the Court found that even if neither assumption of the risk doctrines were applicable, the parents still could not show that their daughters’ alleged injuries were proximately caused by the gymnastics coaches breach of duty.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.