Lacrosse Goes to Player’s Head in School Injury Claim

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

In the case of Podgorski v. Pizzoferrato, a student and lacrosse player filed suit against a teammate, the teammate's parents, lacrosse coaches, school officials, a town, and a board of education, alleging negligent supervision by the school officials and coaches. In two separate motions, the school officials along with the coaches and the town along with the board sought summary judgment on the basis of governmental immunity under Connecticut law. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court's function is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist. In seeking summary judgment, the school has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any issue of fact.

The school and coach argued that the defense of governmental immunity applied to bar the case. In law, qualified governmental immunity is available as a defense when the acts complained of are discretionary. A municipality is immune from liability for the performance of governmental acts, as distinguished from ministerial acts. Governmental acts are performed wholly for the direct benefit of the public and are supervisory or discretionary in nature. On the other hand, ministerial acts are performed in a prescribed manner without the exercise of judgment or discretion as to the propriety of the action. Therefore, a school’s ministerial actions are not protected by governmental immunity.

The student alleged that he was injured when the teammate threw a lacrosse ball at his head immediately before practice. Defendants claimed that they were not liable for negligently supervising student athletes, as supervision was an inherently discretionary, rather than ministerial matter. The student argued that the coaches had a ministerial duty to supervise the athletes at practice and failed to do so. The student argued that the coaches' handbook required the coaches to supervise the team before practice. The handbook in question contained language that incorporated both discretionary and ministerial duties. Whether the coaches "properly" supervised the athletes was a matter of discretion, as it required the exercise of judgment. The coaches did not have discretion, however, to fail to provide any level of supervision during practice. The lacrosse coaches were subject to a board of education policy dictating that they had to be present at practice. The coaches' ministerial duty to supervise "all athletes at practice" necessarily included the time period immediately before the actual practice session.The motions for summary judgment were denied.

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Podgorski v. Pizzoferrato, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2777 (Conn. Super. Ct. Oct. 7, 2009)