Let’s be clear. Teachers and Coaches have no immunity for Criminal Child/Youth Abuse. No one on any square inch of earth is exempt and/or excused from Child/Youth Abuse Crimes and Cruelty to Young Athletes.
“A tort is a civil wrong–a violation of a duty–that causes harm.
“In the U.S. judicial system, an individual who is injured by a breach of duty can sue the other person to collect compensation for that injury. There are basically three types of civil wrongs.”
• Intentional torts include trespass, assault, battery and defamation.
• Unintentional torts include negligence and strict liability. Strict liability is when someone is held liable, even though they are not at fault. It is often used when an individual is engaged in an ultrahazardous activity.
• Constitutional torts occur when a government agent has violated an individual’s constitutional rights.
“Some intentional torts also can be crimes, and a tort-feasor can be required by a civil court to pay money damages to compensate the injured person and also be required by a criminal court to pay a fine or suffer imprisonment.
“Negligence differs from these in that it is an unintentional tort. It occurs when one person unintentionally causes an injury to another through a breach of a duty or violation of a general standard of care.
“The general standard of conduct is conduct that reasonable people may expect others to observe as they go about their daily lives. Negligence is the failure to exercise due care when carrying out a duty or subjecting another to a risk that causes harm. A negligent tort is a tort that, although not intended, was committed in disregard of the rights or reasonable expectations of another person. This is the area of tort law that has given rise to the most litigation.
“The money a tort-feasor must pay to compensate the accuser for the harm the accuser has sustained is called damages. Factors for which money damages are awarded in a tort case include property damage, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and lost wages. If the conduct of the tort-feasor is a particularly outrageous or offensive violation of the reasonable standard of conduct expected, the civil court will add to its award of regular damages to the injured person and amount of money known as exemplary, or punitive, damages. The damages constitute a civil, or private, fine against the tort-feasor and are analogous to the fines imposed by a criminal court.
“The sixth edition of Black’s Law Dictionary defines negligence as “the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a reasonable or prudent man would not do.”
“Schools and their employees are not automatically responsible for every injury that may occur within the school. In order to be held liable for negligence, the following four questions must be answered in the affirmative:
1. Did the defendant owe a duty to the plaintiff?
2. Did the defendant breach that duty?
3. Was the plaintiff injured?
4. Was the breach the proximate cause of the injuries?
“Further, there can be no defenses to the action. Generally speaking, to recover damages, it must be shown that the defendant owes a duty to the injured person, that the behavior fell short of that required, that this caused a real injury to the person, and that the injured person was not responsible for causing the injury.
“There is a duty of due care that the law recognizes one person owes to another. This duty may arise from a contract, a statute, common sense, or a special relationship the parties have to one another. Regarding students, the courts have found that schools and their employees have the duty to supervise students, provide adequate and appropriate instruction prior to commencing an activity that may pose a risk of harm, and provide a safe environment. Usually, that duty extends to students while they are in the custody or control of the school. Schools may have a duty to supervise students off school grounds when they have caused them to be there such as while on field trips or extracurricular events.
“Schools may have a duty to supervise students on school grounds before and after school when they have caused them to be there, for example, when the bus drops them off. A duty can be extended if a person assumes additional responsibilities, such as assuming the duty to supervise students before and after school. (Extracurricular Sports) Schools may acquire a duty to supervise when they have, by their previous actions, assumed the duty to supervise at this time such as when some staff has supervised intermittently or consistently before official time to arrive.
“Schools also have a duty to warn of known dangers even when they do not have a duty to supervise. In the general workforce, a supervisor, and ultimately the company, is responsible for the negligent acts of employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior. However, in education, generally no one is automatically responsible for the acts of another. School administrators are not automatically responsible for the negligent acts of teachers. In school situations, usually a plaintiff must find a separate duty on the part of each defendant.
Breach of Duty
“Once a duty has been established, the injured individual must show that the duty was breached. The duty has been breached when the individual unreasonably fails to carry out the duty.
“In carrying out duties, one is expected to act as an ordinary, prudent, and reasonable person considering all of the circumstances involved. The court or jury makes a determination of how the reasonable person would have acted; if the individual did less, he or she is found negligent.
“The standard varies for professionals; for example, a reasonable teacher or principal. Defendants who are professionals will be held to a standard based on the skills or training they should have acquired for that position. Thus, the question to be answered is: What would the reasonable professional have done under the same or similar circumstances?
“The standard varies also with the individual circumstances of the situation. Each situation gives rise to a unique set of circumstances. Some of the factors which may be considered in determining the standard of care include the following:
• Age and maturity
• Nature of the risk
• Precautions taken to avoid injury
• Environment and context (including characteristics of students, location, physical characteristics, and so forth)
• Type of activity
• Previous practice and experience
“In determining negligence, children are not held to the same standard of care as adults; instead their actions must be reasonable for a child of similar age, maturity, intelligence, and experience. Some states further classify children according to a presumption of capabilities. In those states, children under seven are not held responsible for negligence or unreasonable acts. The noted exception, however, is that a child may be held to an adult standard of care when engaged in an adult activity, for example, driving a car or handling a weapon.
“The plaintiff must show an actual loss or real damage, for instance a physical bodily injury or a real loss. Compensation may include direct monetary damages for medical expenses, replacement of property, lost wages, and so forth.
“The plaintiff may recover also for intangible injuries, such as pain and suffering, and emotional distress. In some situations an intangible injury is sufficient for recovery. However, there are states that require at least a physical manifestation of an injury if there are no tangible injuries. [Liability of School Districts and School Personnel for Negligence – Duty, Breach of Duty, Injury, Causation, Defenses,”
All states have statutes for Criminal Behavior. The definition Recklessness In Kentucky for example:
(4) “Recklessly” — A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. [KRS 501.020 Effective: January 1, 1975]
The reasonable person doctrine (historically reasonable man) is an objective standard against which any individual’s conduct can be measured. It is used to determine if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven.
The reasonable person standard holds: each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances. [1. Brown v. Kendall, 60 Mass. 292 (1850)]
“In certain professions, the standard of care is determined by the standard that would be exercised by the reasonably prudent professional in that line of work.
“Medical standard of care is a standard of care is a medical or psychological treatment guideline, and can be general or specific. It specifies appropriate treatment based on scientific evidence and collaboration between medical and/or psychological professionals involved in the treatment of a given condition.
“In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.
“It is the first element that must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. The claimant must be able to show a duty of care imposed by law which the defendant has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability.
“The duty of care may be imposed by operation of law between individuals with no current direct relationship (familial or contractual or otherwise), but eventually become related in some manner, as defined by common law (meaning case law).
“Duty of care may be considered a formalization of the social contract, the implicit responsibilities held by individuals towards others within society. It is not a requirement that a duty of care be defined by law, though it will often develop through the jurisprudence of common law. [Wikipedia]
“While athletes may consent to undertake a wide variety of risks inherent to their particular sport, there are certain risks which they may not necessarily assume.”
Non-Accidental, Preventable Sports Injury are Injury and/or Death from Risks, Mistreatment, harm, abuse and Human Rights violations that are NOT Inherent or Natural to the Games Athletes Play
• PEMISSION TO PARTICIPATE IS NOT GRANTED by the Parent or Guardian for Children FOR THESE RISKS that are NOT Inherent to the games they PLAY
• PEMISSION TO PARTICIPATE IS NOT GRANTED by the Youth and Adult Athlete FOR THESE RISKS that are NOT Inherent to the games they PLAY
• The Parent, Guardian and Participant do not waive or release claims based upon unlawful endangerment, maltreatment and abusive misconduct by the Coach
Preventable, Non-Accidental Injuries are Injuries, Deaths, Human Rights Viloations and Sexual Abuse not inherrent or natural to the games that were/are played.
“the duty owed athletes takes the form of giving adequate instruction in the activity, supplying proper equipment, making a reasonable selection or matching of participants, providing non-negligent supervision of the particular contest, and taking proper post-injury procedures to guard against aggravation of injuries. [Leahy v. School Board, 450 So.2nd 883, (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)]”
“Several other courts have defined the duty of care owed by coaches and high schools to student-athletes. In Kahn v. East Side Union High School District, 75 P.3rd 30, (Cal. 2003), the court stated that a coach will breach his duty to a student-athlete if the coach “intentionally injures the student or engages in conduct that is reckless in the sense that it is ‘totally outside the range of the ordinary activity’ involved in teaching or coaching the sport.”
“Coaches must provide proper supervision, training, and instruction. Coaches should take measures to ensure that players follow the rules of the game in an effort to avoid injuries. Coaches must warn against all known dangers or dangers that should have or could have been discovered in the exercise of reasonable care. In addition, coaches must supervise their players in proportion to how dangerous the activity is. The more dangerous the sport, the greater the responsibility the coach bears.”
“In addition, coaches may be found liable if an injured player was not provided with the proper protective and safety equipment and, even further, the coach must see to it that the athlete was properly instructed as to the appropriate use of this equipment. A coach must also see that the equipment is properly maintained so that its effectiveness is maximized.”
“A coach may never be free from all potential theories of liability, but a coach can protect himself or herself by using reasonable care and ensuring that athletes under his or her supervision are fully prepared, and protected, before stepping foot on the field or court” [Assessing a Coach’s Liability for Injury to the Student-Athlete By Robert J. Romano, Esq.]
• Unfortunately, both Athletes and Coaches are at Risk following reckless, negligent Coaching Behavior because Athletes can be seriously injured, suffer fatality, sustain Human Rights violations or are sexually abused and Coaches are at Risk for Criminal anc Civil Litigation.
• Crossing the line by pushing and punishing Athletes beyond their Physical and Emotional limits and Abusing Athletes are abnormal behaviors, unnecessary and preventable in Competitive Sports. These activities are not inherrent or natural to the games that are played.
• Sadly, when Coaches cannot restrain themselves from Criminal Behaviors, Criminal Prosecution with or without conviction of Offenders or the threat thereof, is the most effective deterrent to endangerment, maltreatment, neglect and abuse and human rights disorders of Child and Youth Athletes.
• Education of the Coach and Athletic Community about the likelihood, probability and chance of Criminal Prosecution of the Coach or other Offenders following abnormal Coaching Behaviors causing Harm to Athletes is the most effective deterrent to the Risk of Criminal Prosecution and Civil Suit and Litigation of even the Coach.
• “General Deterrence Theory: People will engage in criminal and deviant activities if they do not fear apprehension and punishment. General deterrence theory focuses on reducing the probability of deviance in the general population. Examples: Drunk-driving crackdowns, special gang-related crime task forces and police units, publication and highly visible notices of laws and policies (Notice: Shoplifters will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law), and the death penalty.” [Rational Choice and Deterrence Theory, Sociology of Deviant Behavior, Sociology 200-Robert Keel, Instructor, The Evolution of Classical Theory]
• The only gauge of justice that citizens have to protect their children, loved ones or themselves are the Rules of Law.
• All Citizens serve the Rule of Law.
• All Citizens are entitled to Equal Justice Under the Law, coined by Chief Justice Melville Fuller. [In the case of Caldwell v. Texas in 1891] Fuller wrote about the Fourteenth Amendment as follows: “By the Fourteenth Amendment the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law. [1. Peccarelli, Anthony. “The Meaning of Justice”, DuPage County Bar Association Brief (March 2000)] [2.Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U.S. 692 (1891)]
• National Center for Athlete Safety Medical-Legal Partnership (NCASM-LP) promotes, advocates and targets change of current Government and Public Health inaccurate administrative policies concerning Child and Youth Athlete Safety.
• Child and Youth Athlete Protective Laws must be reaffirmed, validated and enforced, by those who have ignored and overlooked them in the past, as the Supreme Rule. The opportunity for Justice is in the Will to Enforce Equal Protection for Child and Youth Athletes.
• NCASM-LP will pursue legislative change by starting the discussion between constituents and members of the general assembly about Child and Youth Athlete Safety 1st
• The lawful changes targeted include enforcement of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act 1974 most recently amended and reauthorized as the KEEPING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES SAFE ACT OF 2003 PUBLIC LAW 108–36 that has ignored, overlooked and omitted Child and Youth Athlete Maltreatments, Endangerments and Abuse.
• Government should enforce already existing current law for all vulnerable, violated, at risk populations, including Athletes.
• Stop the “Socially Approved Athletic Child Abuse” and
“Battered-Child-Athlete-Syndrome described by Dr. Edwin R. Guise and Dr. Richard M. Ball, respectively, who coined the terms in 1981.
• NCASM-LP aims to influence improvement in public health policy and government resource and response allocations within government, public health, political, economic and social systems and institutions.
CHARGES OF CRIMINAL ABUSE AND NEGLECT AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN IN COURT
There must be an elimination of the Justice Systems’ jurisdictional confusion that allows parallel jurisdiction exclusively for Child Athlete Abuse Syndrome in Adult Criminal Court
There must be Intervention by Juvenile and Family Court Systems asserting Child Athletes witness and defendants Rights.
There must be Administration of Justice for Abused and Negligently Supervised Child and Youth Athletes, even if, as the law provides, charges have been pursued in Adult Criminal Court. That is not Double Jeopardy.
JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURTS SERVE A DUAL PURPOSE
1. Punish Juveniles when they commit a Crime
2. Punish Adult offenders who commit Crimes against Children and Youth
Juvenile and Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction for all types of Child Abuse and Neglect:
the Juvenile session of the District Court or the Family division of the Circuit Court Shall have exclusive jurisdiction for Children OR Youth less than 18 years and who allegedly are neglected, or abused; KRS 610.010
The Burden of Proof for Criminal Child Abuse is less than charges in Adult Criminal Court.
The County Attorney or Prosecutor can file charges of Criminal Child Abuse in Juvenile and Family Court.
In Adult Criminal Court, the County Attorney or Prosecutor must bring the case to the Grand Jury for an Indictment.
“In cases where criminal charges arising out of the same transaction or occurrence are filed against an adult alleged to be the perpetrator of child abuse or neglect, such charges shall be tried separately from the adjudicatory hearing held pursuant to this chapter.” KRS 620.120.
In other words there can be collateral or parrallel Court Cases in Juvenile or Family Court and Adult Criminal Court.
Adjudication did not occur in Family or Juvenile Court independent of the other criminal adjudication in Jefferson Criminal District Court in the Death case of Max Gilpin.
Attorneys did not prosecute the case in Jefferson Juvenile Court.
Children have special needs during court proceedings. Thus the concept for Child Protection and Human Right of the Child in Juvenile and Family Courts.
An example is the Coach Stinson Criminal Case: Children witnesses were paraded across the witness stand in a trial that was open to the public and video streamed by the Courier Journal newspaper over the Internet. Children’s testimonies appeared hesitant, altered and absent by their inappropriate examination and their public display.
Children Witnesses public exposure and spectacle were unfortunate.
That is the reason all types of Child Abuse and Neglect are the exclusive jurisdiction of Juvenile and Family Court. These Courts are not open to the public; No TV or publications. The Human Rights of all Children are protected.
All Children have Rights in Court i.e. Defendants, Plaintiffs, Witnesses, every Child
Juvenile and Family Courts have been created to take care of the special needs of All Children and protect Children’s Rights during a Child Abuse proceeding.
Child Victims, Offenders and Witnesses’ Rights are protected.
If a 15 year old High School Football Athlete with Exertional Heat Stroke and Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, ARDS from Ozone, is examined and treated in the Emergency Department, because of the nature of the Injury and the Extreme Weather Conditions, the hospital notifies the CPS Child Protective Services.
CPS, in turn, notifies the police. The agency initiates and investigation that results in proceedings in Juvenile/Family Court.
It can be that at the same time after a criminal investigation by the County Attorney or Criminal Prosecutor initiates felony proceedings in Adult Criminal Court.
In such cases there are often two separate, simultaneous court proceedings involving the same victim, the same alleged Adult Offender, and to a large extent, the same incidents of maltreatment.
Unless there is coordination between these two proceedings, there are duplications of effort, inconsistent decisions, wasted resources, and needless trauma to child victims and child witnesses. Coordination is needed at all stages: investigation, case preparation, and litigation. Currently, proceedings for Criminal Child Abuse in any setting, including Sports and Athletes, are sometimes a rat maze.
[Coordination of Juvenile and Criminal court Child Abuse and Neglect Proceedings, by Marcia Sprague and Mark Hardin, University of Louisville Journal of Family Law Volume:35 Issue:2 Dated:(Spring 1996) Pages:239-324]
Doctors and others with knowledge concerning the incident, in good faith, are mandatet to Properly Report Serious Injuries and/or Deaths Resulting from suspected Child Athlete Abuse or Neglect to the County Attorney and Child Protective Services.
Detailed Investigation of Injuries and/or Death by Child Protective Services, [CPS], County Attorney, others depending on the state.
Statutory Adjudication of Child Athlete Abuse and Neglect in the JUVENILE/FAMILY COURT SYSTEMS or collaterally in both Juvenile/Family Court and Adult Criminal Court.
THE COACH IS AT THE CENTER OF PREVENTABLE, NON-ACCIDENTAL CHILD AND YOUTH ATHLETE INJURIES AND DEATHS.
SIMPLY PUT, THESE ARE INJURIES AND DEATHS THAT ARE NOT INHERRENT OR NATURAL TO THE GAME THAT THE ATHLETE WAS PLAYING WHEN INJURED.
Physical and Psychological Injuries can discourage Sports Participation. “Millions of children enter organized sports programs athletically unprepared every year, often with disastrous results..…. children suffer when they are unable to meet the expectations of coaches, parents and especially themselves. [Start Smart: sports development is a Start Smart for children – April, 1996 by Greg Bach, BNET]
“Children’s importance for society is reflected in an old adage ‘children are our future.’ Everything in society depends on what becomes of children. The quality of children’s lives determines the quality of society’s future, its people, culture, politics, and economics.…… One would assume that because of this, society is to give primary consideration to the situation and welfare of children today”….
“However, our children don’t appear, from our behaviors, to be our primary concern. Children remain a low-priority issue for governments……”. The magnitude of Child Abuse and Neglect and Child Sports Preventable, Non-Accidental Injuries supports the grim issue, currently demanding attention.
Children, under 18, constitute about one quarter (25% imagine) of the world population. Yet, “CHILDREN LINGER IN THE BACKYARD OF SOCIETY. The most authoritative international documents confirm this.” [Electronic Journal of Sociology (2004), ISSN: 1198 3655 Children’s Suffrage as a Key Way of Improvement of Children’s Well-being in an Age of Globalization, Leo Semashko]
Some unfortunate Child Athletes, under 18, linger even beyond the Backyard of Society. When it comes to Child Athlete Protective Custody and Proper Child Athlete Supervision, rather than being Protected and Properly Supervised, about 20% of Child Athletes seemingly are tethered like rented mules to the Coaches Plowline in the Athletic Plow Fields of America……. The disciples of “Old Time” Plowline Coaches are the Coaches that need to be Educated, Regulated and, when that fails and they behave badly, litigated. The Child Athletes in these ill-fated circumstances are the Children with whom advocates have become worried. Prosecution is the main deterrent for Crimes Against Children.
“Sports Builds Good Character……When Good Characters are Coaching the Sport” [Plowline Coaches, Mules and 100 Yards of Cotton, Micheal B. Minix, Sr., M.D.]
Juvenile and Family Courts’ Non-existent Judgments confirm this societal problem. Physically and Psychologically (Emotionally) Abusive and Negligently Supervising Coaches have not been satisfactorily Educated and Regulated and have never been Adjudicated and Convicted in Juvenile and Family Court (where Exclusive Authority is Statutory for suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Injuries or Death). In contrast, Child Athlete Sexual Abuse has been appropriately prosecuted there, occasionally.
20% of Child Athletes are at risk for different types of abuse, neglect, violation and/or exploitation in competitive sports. [Paulo David, U.N.]
As long as Child and Youth Athletes compete and win, some Coaches will beat and treat them like rented mules. The Dysfunctional Athletic Communities that support that breed of Coach, turn a Blind Eye to the events in the Athletic Plow Field and the Maltreatment of Child Athletes. This is the heart of the Comprehensive Model of Child Athlete Abuse and Neglect.
Non-Accidental, Preventable Child Sports Injuries are Injuries and/or Deaths that are NOT due to Inherent Risks of the Game or Natural to the games that Athletes play. Accidental Injuries and/or Death ARE the result of Inherent Risks that are Natural to the games.
Preventable, Non-Accidental Injuries must cease, so that organized sports will contribute its share for Child Physical Fitness and the sustainability of Sports will continue as we should know them, once we right their course.
By age 13, many Children drop out of youth sports. The top three reasons: adults, coaches and parents. Yet, a massive number continue to participate. [ Safe Kids USA Campaign Web site. 2009]
“Youth Athletes spend an average of 326 hours of practice time per season under the supervision of their Coach, dwarfing time spent with teachers, health educators and physicians.
“Injury Prevention, in the growing Athlete, Centers on the Principles of Effective Coaching, Proper Training Habits, maintenance of flexibility and consistent use of Correct Biomechanics.”[Youth Sports: A Pediatrician’s Perspective on Coaching and Injury Prevention, Michael C. Koester, MD, ATC, J Athl Train > v.35(4); Oct–Dec 2000, Good Shepherd Community Hospital, Hermiston, OR]
The Elephant in the Sports Arena, at the Center of Non-Accidental, Preventable Child Sports Injuries and Death is the Head Coach.
What Coaches do not understand is that they are at risk for Criminal Prosecution and Civil suit and litigation after Abnormal Coaching Behaviors that result in serious injuries and/or deaths and sexual abuse.
There are many benefits for Children when they “Play It Safe”. However, in recent years, Sports Participation has evolved with serious costs and consequences to Children’s Human Rights in Youth Sport, They are:
o Physical, psychological (emotional) and sexual abuse
o Doping and medical ethics
o Deficient education
o Child labor
o Lack of accountability of governments, criminal justice, high school athletic associations, sports federations, coaches and parents [Paulo David, UN]
There are 75,200,000 children less than 18 years old in the United States in 2010. [http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp]
About 20 million American children ages 6 through 16 play organized Non-School Sports. About 25 million youth play competitive School Sports.
About 45 million kids ages 6 through 18 participate in at least one School or Non-School Sports. [Marianne Engle, Ph.D., sports psychologist and Clinical Assistant Professor at the NYU Child Study Center, interview, 2010]
In the United States every year 9,000,000 children are at risk for different types of abuse, violation and/or exploitation in competitive sports, using the estimated (20% of 45,000,000 = 9,000,000) risk of Paulo David, Officer in Charge Human Rights Treaty Division, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, who is regarded as the International expert.
Approximately 3 million children and adolescents ages 14 and under get hurt annually playing sports or participating in recreational activities.
Although death from a sports injury is rare, the leading cause of death from a sports-related injury is a brain injury.
Sports and recreational activities contribute to approximately 21 percent of all traumatic brain injuries among American children and adolescents.
More than 775,000 children and adolescents ages 14 and under are treated in hospital emergency rooms for sports-related injuries each year.
EXAMPLES OF CHILD AHLETE ABUSE AND NEGLECT
100% of the following categories of Child Athlete Injuries are not inherent to the game in which the Child Athlete participates, are Non-Accidental and Preventable, are often Catastrophic Child Athlete Injuries and/or Death and usually the result of the Head Coach’s Child Athlete Abuse or Negligent Supervision:
Injuries from Required athlete doping
Exertional Heat Illness or Exertional Heat Stroke from Withholding water causing dehydration
Exercise to Exhaustion causing Rhabdomyolysis and other conditions
Strenuous Exercise during an Air Alert precipitating Asthma Attack, Ozone Toxicity or other Toxic Inhalation Disorders
Requiring practicing or participating in game while seriously injured
Improper Medical Consultation and Treatment
Failure to Recognize and Mismanagement of Concussion
Sexual Athlete Abuse
Practicing or participating in game during Dangerous Environmental Conditions i.e. Heat, Cold, Air Alert, Electrical and other Storms, dangerous playing surface
Overexercise / Over-training causing Stress Fractures and other conditions
Distribution of Faulty equipment that results in serious injuries or death
Allowing Child Athletes to participate in sports knowingly with injuries, disease or sickness
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE FROM STUDY: HOW TO RECOGNIZE CHILD ATHLETE ABUSE AND NEGLECT AND THE SIGNS OF THE ABUSIVE, NEGLIGENT COACH:
Publicly Humiliated and Embarrassed Athletes
No Positive Relationship
Screamer / Yells Continuously
Played Head Games
Brainwashed to Play Out of Fear of the Coach
Brainwashed not to Play Out of Love of the Game
No or Improper Medical Treatment
Played while Seriously Injured
NIGYYSOB – Dr. Eric Berne, Games People Play
Never Good Enough
Delusions of Grandeur. Thought he was Bear Bryant.
Interested in only His Needs and Accomplishment
Totalitarian / Commando / Total Sport
Manipulated / Micromanaged
Excessive Training as Punishment
Closed Minded / Not Open to Suggestion by Superiors and Colleagues
Physically and Psychologically (Emotionally) Abusive
Paid No Attention and Ignored
Coached Creating Fear and Intimidation
Did not Communicate
No constructive Individual Attention
Master of Feel Bad Emotions, Coached Playing Out of Guilt
Bad Role Model
Insecure, Emotionally labile
Destroyed the Love of the Game
Called Every Athlete Derogatory Names – Turd, Shave Tail, AO
[“A Longitudinal and Retrospective Study of The Impact of Coaching Behaviors on the 1961-1962 University of Kentucky Football Wildcats”, Kay Collier McLaughlin, Ph.D., Micheal B. Minix Sr. M.D., Twila Minix, R.N., Jim Overman, Scott Brogdon]
HOW COMMON ARE ABUSE AND NEGLECT IN CHILD SPORTS?
The Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission conducted a survey in 1993 and found the following incidences of abuse in sports in Minnesota:
• 45.3% of males and females surveyed said they have been called names, yelled at or insulted while participating in sports.
• 17.5% of Athletes surveyed said they have been hit, kicked or slapped while participating in sports.
• 21% said they have been pressured to play with an injury
• 8.2% said they have been pressured to intentionally harm others while playing sports.
• 3.4% said they have been pressured into sex or sexual touching,
• 8% of all surveyed said they have been called names with sexual connotations while participating in sports.
Shakeshaft estimates that 1%-2% school coaches are sexual abusers. The percentage of Non-school coaches is much higher.
Applying that rate to the NAYS estimate of 3 million volunteer and school coaches in the United States would produce about 6,000 coaches nationwide with records of sexual abuse.
That 6,000 are only the coaches who have been convicted or are being tried. As many as 94 percent of children who are sexually molested never report the incident, according to Hofstra University education professor Charol Shakeshaft, who studied cases in New York State. No one knows how many exist, without records, who will never be caught [Violation Of Trust / When young athletes are sex-abuse victims, their coaches are often the culprits Date: 6/9/02 Author: Michael Dobie, Publication: Newsday. http://www.taasa.org/library/pdfs/TAASALibrary192.pdf]
“In the clear-cut cases of sexual abuse in schools that she studied, Shakeshaft said, the two largest groups of school abusers were coaches and band directors. Most experts believe sexual abuse by coaches is even more common in youth sports, where there is less supervision, monitoring and control, and where it is easier to cover up such allegations.
“Prevalence numbers locally are hard to come by. Shakeshaft estimates that 1 to 2 percent of teachers and, by extension, school coaches are sexual abusers
● Child sexual abuse occurs to as many as 25 percent of girls and 14 percent of boys before they reach 18 years of age. Child Athlete Sexual Abuse occurs from 16 to 40% of Athletes depending on the study referenced and those numbers are conservative because of the taboo.
“Growth plate injuries to long bones of youth athletes are often due to over use and over practice, poor coaching techniques.”[The Center for Orthopedics and Sports Medicine.
Both Accidental Injuries that are inherent to the sport and Non-Accidental Injuries that are not inherent to the sport, are often lumped together, even though their causes are profoundly nothing like the other.
• According to the CDC, more than half (>50%) of all sports injuries in children are preventable (Non-Accidental). [Keeping Kids Safe in the Game GLOVERSVILLE, NY (08/23/2010)(readMedia)– Nathan Littauer Hospital in conjunction with STOP Sports Injuries, http://readme.readmedia.com/Keeping-Kids-Safe-and-in-the-Game/1697556]
• There is a growing epidemic of preventable youth sports injuries that are dismantling kids’ athletic hopes and dreams at an early age.
• This increase in play has led to some other startling statistics about injuries among America’s young athletes.
• Sports injuries can cause permanent damage and increase the chances of surgeries and arthritis later in life. Disability. Health Care Burden. Cost when adults.
• If an injury does occur, early identification and proper treatment is the key to a successful recovery. Armed with the correct information and tools, today’s youth athletes can remain healthy, play safe, and stay in the game for life.
During our football Reunion, 1961-1962 University of Kentucky football team, June 2008, conducted a study: see below
Additionally, Physical Abuse injuries from Abnormal Coaching Behaviors and Maltreatment are listed in the study.Frank Deford, Sports Illustrated, said it was the only study of its kind from his knowledge.
The Psychological damage found was that each player who participated in the study suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. (PTSD). Each Football Athlete suffered Anxiety Reactions during the past 50 years, following severe Physical and Psychological Athlete Abuse and Neglect.
The UK Football Athletes in 1961-1962 were 17 to 19 years old. “A Longitudinal and Retrospective Study of The Impact of Coaching Behaviors on the 1961-1962 University of Kentucky Football Wildcats”, Kay Collier McLaughlin, Ph.D., Micheal B. Minix Sr. M.D., Twila Minix, R.N., Jim Overman, Scott Brogdon
Garbino et al., in their extensive work in the area of emotional abuse of elite athletes, identified 8 key behaviors as being indicative of emotional abuse. These are belittling, humiliating, shouting, scapegoating, rejecting, isolating, threatening, and ignoring.
Participants reported feeling stupid, worthless, upset, less confident, humiliated, depressed, fearful and angry as a result of the behavior of their coaches.
The findings suggest that the behavior of coaches is a threat to the psychological well-being of elite child athletes.[NCJRS Abstract, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Emotional Abuse of Elite Child Athletes by Their Coaches, Child Abuse, Volume:13 Issue:3 Dated:May-June 2004 Pages:215 to 223, Misia Gervis; Nicola Dunn, 05/2004, United Kingdom]
The above was the only report of Child Athlete Abuse in the National Criminal Justice Reference Service. The Child Athlete Abuse research and information highway in the Criminal Justice System is a mere buffalo trace where Child Athletes are concerned.
In 2008: “Football sends 1,024,022 kids to doctor’s offices, emergency rooms and hospitals. (@ 50% CDC = 512,011 were Non-Accidental and Preventable)
Soccer is next on the list, with 368,726 injuries for that same age group. (@ 50% CDC = 184,363 were Preventable)
Cheerleading was the cause of 75,307 injuries.(@ 50% CDC = 37,653 were Preventable)
Data from the Consumer Product Safety Commission shows that rates of injuries from cheerleading accidents were 5,000 in 1980. [Miller Bohn]
In addition, the leading cause of catastrophic injuries in female athletes is cheerleading, according to The National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research.They account for approximately 65 to 66 percent of all female catastrophic injuries in either high school or college.
Gymnastics injuries numbered 67,542.” [University of Michigan Health System reported that in 2008, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reported the following statistics on injuries to youth under age 18]
Concussion: From 1997 to 2007, emergency department visits for concussion in kids aged 8 to 13 playing organized sports doubled, and the number of visits increased by more than 200 percent in older teens, according to the report. From 2001 to 2005, there were an estimated 251,000 emergency department visits for concussion among U.S. kids aged 8 to 19 which were sports-related. [Dr. Lisa Bakhos and colleagues at Brown University, September, Pediatrics, Dr. Mark Halstead, orthopaedics at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis]
“The annual incidence of football-related concussion in the United States is estimated at 300,000, and nearly 45,000 football-related head injuries were serious enough to be treated at U.S. hospital emergency rooms in 2009,” Dr. Gail Rosseau, a Chicago-area neurosurgeon, said in an AANS news release [Medlline, Surgeons’ Group Weighs In on Football Injury Prevention By Robert Preidt, August 6, 2010]
The CDC reported: 2005-2009 data from the National High School Sports-Related Injury Surveillance Study that Football was the sport associated with the most heat related illnesses. August was the most common month for them to occur, were most likely to occur during practice, not game time, and more likely to occur among overweight athletes.
Heat-related illnesses included heat cramps, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke. Since 1995, 31 high school football players have died from heat stroke, according to the National Center for Catastrophic Sports Injury Research. Michael McGeehin, director of CDC’s Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects. “Heat related illness is Preventable. Crimes were committed against these Children and no one was held accountable.
“Among athletes ages 5 to 14, 28 percent of percent of football players, 25 percent of baseball players, 22 percent of soccer players, 15 percent of basketball players, and 12 percent of softball players were injured while playing their respective sports
Since 2000 there has been a fivefold increase in the number of serious shoulder and elbow injuries among youth baseball and softball players.”[ Preserving the Future of Sport: From Prevention to Treatment of Youth Overuse Sports Injuries. AOSSM 2009 Annual Meeting Pre-Conference Program. Keystone, Colorado.]
Pounding on the Rule of Law in the Sports Arena
Sports Injuries in Children Requiring Hospital Emergency Care
Sports-related injuries accounted for 22.0 percent of the 1.4 million visits to the Emergency Department (ED) for injuries among children ages 5 to 17 in the 25 states included in this study.
Children were treated and released from the ED in 98.7 percent of sports-related ED visits; whereas, in 1.3 percent of cases children were admitted to the hospital for further care.
Superficial injury (contusion) was the single most common treat-and-release ED condition related to sports injury for boys and girls (51,700 and 20,000 visits, respectively).
Leg and arm fractures were the most common reasons for sports-related ED visits in children to result in hospital admission, collectively accounting for 1,900 admissions from the ED.
The rate of ED visits for sports injuries in children was about three times greater among boys than girls
Top 5 most common reasons for Emergency Department visits that resulted in a hospital stay for sports injuries in children†, in 25 study states in 2006. Because 50% of Child Sports Related Injuries are Non-Accidental and Preventable, 41,700 Child Athletes were admitted to the hospital for the following injuries that were caused or allowed to be caused by Child Athlete Abuse and / or Neglect, in the 25 states included in this study.
Injury Boys Girls Total 50% are Non-Accidental
Fractures lower limb 9300 + 2300 = 11,600 X 50% = 5800
Fractures upper limb 42,000 + 10,900 = 52,900 X 50% = 26,000
Intracranial injury 10.200 + 2,500 = 12,700 X 50% = 6,350
Skull / face fractures 5,200 + 1,900 = 7,100 X 50% = 3,550
Total hospitalization: 41,700 Non-Accidental, Preventable Child Athlete Injuries.
Because, both Accidental and Non-Accidental, Preventable Child Athlete Injuries are lumped togeather and the CDC declared that 50% of Child Athlete Injuries are Non-Accidental and Preventable, in the above 25 state 2006 survey, there were potentially 41,700 Non-Accidental, Preventable Child Athlete Abuse and/or Neglect Injuries that required Hospital Admission.
[June 2009. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Sports Injuries in Children Requiring Hospital Emergency Care, 2006, Lauren Wier, M.P.H, Adela Miller, and Claudia Steiner M.D., M.P.H ]
CHILD PROTECTIVE CUSTODY AND PROPER SUPERVISION
The Child is a very special creation. Child, a minor less than 18 years of age, is the defining label that alerts those who have the duty for Child Protection and Supervision.
Until the age of 18, the entwinement of the Child and their Care-Giving Supervisor, primordially the parent, is meant to be wound and fused as tightly together biologically as the mother and her fetus. They are kindred biologically.
The Child and Parent virtually are inseparable. The Child, akin to the unweaned suckling, is hungry, dependent and vulnerable.
The Parent, who is the first entwined Child Protection Supervisor, is intended to be an altruistic entity that has the fundamental effect of promoting the health and welfare of that special entity, the Child. They are biologically predetermined. [The Challenge of Biological Determinism, Rosemary Rodd, 1987 Royal Institute of Philosophy.]
Athletic Teams are described by Coaches as Family, an accurate description. Coaches have the exact same duty to the Child as the Parent. The chain of Care-Giving Supervision and Custodial Child Protection is transferred to the Coach. The Child is the Coach’s Protective kindred.
Children are mandated to attend school. The Protective Custody and Care-Giving Supervision are transferred to the Teacher for curricular activities and the Coach during extracurricular school activities. They both have a Duty to Protect the Child.
The premise for this duty is that a Child is compelled to attend school and must be separated from the Parent. [McLeod v. Grant County School Dist. No. 128,255 P.2d 360,362 (Wash. 1953.
The Protective Custody and Care Giving Supervision of Teachers and Coaches is mandatorily substituted for that of the Parent.
Teachers and Coaches assigned to Protect and Supervise children during school sponsored curricular or extracurricular activities have a duty to exercise that degree of care that ordinarily prudent Teachers or Coaches engaged in the supervision of Students or Athletes of like age would exercise under similar circumstances.
It is the same for non-school Coaches. Parents and Guardians do not sign-up their Children for Non-Inherent Risks, Maltreatment, Endangerment by Coaches for the game they play.
“National and State High School Athletic Federations and Associations are Not granted the Privilege and Duty of Child Protective Custody and Care Giving Supervision. They have a Duty to protect Children, as everyone does, but not the Custody. They are not in the Chain of Child Care Giving Supervision and Protective Custody. Their Rules, Regulations and By-Laws are not Child Protective Laws. There Rules are only for Interscholastic Games and Competitions. They have no authority for High School Sports Practices or JV or Middle School Sports Activities.
THE RULE OF LAW IN THE SPORTS ARENA
Maintaining the Rule of Law and the Enforcement of the Criminal Codes of Conduct and Child Protective Laws are the basic responsibilities of Government.
CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 1974) is Federal Child Protection Legislation and Laws that support the States’ Duty and Power to act on behalf of Child Protection.
All states have Child Protective Laws.
Depending on the state, Juvenile and Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over Child (Athlete) Abuse and Negligent Child Athlete Supervision Adjudications for:
o Child Athlete Physical, Psychological (Emotional) Maltreatment and Endangerment that Result in Serious Injuries and/or Death (Child Athlete Abuse)
o Child Athlete Sexual Abuse
o Negligent Coaching Supervision of Child Athletes that Result in Serious Injuries and/or Death.
o The above are the categories of Non-Accidental, Preventable Child Sports Injuries and/or Death
In some states “in cases where criminal charges arising out of the same transaction or occurrence are filed against an adult alleged to be the perpetrator of child abuse or neglect, such charges shall be tried separately from the adjudicatory hearing held pursuant to this chapter”
The Surgeon General of the United States Workshop revealed that the following systems are in crisis when it comes to Child Abuse and Neglect. ” The full scale of Child maltreatment is masked by secrecy and denial. There is a crisis in the:
o Public Health Services
o Social /Child Welfare Systems
o Criminal Justice Departments
o Education-Awareness Groups
Research reveals that others are in crisis, as well:
o Federal High School Athletic Federations
o State High School Athletic Associations
o Non-School Leagues and Associations
The Surgeon General of the United States Workshop included Coaches among potential targeted perpetrators of Child Athlete Abuse and Neglect. [Surgeon General’s Workshop on Making Prevention of Child Maltreatment a National Priority: Implementing Innovations of a Public Health Approach, Surgeon General’s Workshop Proceedings Lister Hill Auditorium, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland March 30–31, 2005]
Juvenile and Family Court Judges are the “Gatekeepers of our nation’s Child (Athlete) Abuse Systems.” Gate keeping involves both permitting entry and disallowing entry to the Juvenile and Family Court Systems. Child Abuse and Neglect Misconduct and Malfeasance are unlawful.
Children have special needs during court proceedings. The concept for Child Protection and Human Right of the Child in Juvenile and Family Courts.
Child (Athletes) require additional procedural safeguards, compared to Adults, to offset the disadvantages of youth in the justice system. [Focus on Law Studies, FALL 2000 Volume XVI, Number 1, The Juvenile Court: Changes and Challenges by Barry C. Feld
An example when Children witnesses are paraded across the witness stand in a trial, open to the public, video streamed by a newspaper over the Internet. Children’s testimonies have, in the past, appeared hesitant and altered by their inappropriate examination and their public display. Their public exposure and spectacle has been unfortunate. That is an example for the reason all types of Child Abuse and Neglect are the exclusive jurisdiction of Juvenile and Family Courts
Juvenile and Family Courts are not open to the public; No TV or publications. The Human Rights and Protection of all Children victims and witnesses are protected.
Doctors should be the“Eyes and Ears of Child Welfare”
Doctors are mandated to report Serious Injuries and/or Death to the County Attorney or Child Protective Services after their examination and treatment.
A Report is not accusation, but a call for further investigation.
Doctors are guaranteed anonymity and immunity after a report.
Dr. Steven Kairys, a professor of pediatrics at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, N.J., and director of the American Academy of Pediatrics, said a major concern of pediatricians with reporting abuse is the judges. One of the most powerful mechanisms for protecting children from abuse is a law that designates school teachers, day care operators, doctors, nurses, and others “mandatory reporters” of child abuse and neglect.”
Kairys said abuse cases are inadequately reported by pediatricians and inadequately investigated, because of untrained social workers, fear of the doctor for disruption of the parent-doctor relationships, paper work, poor communication, and mistrust between Child Protective Services (CPS) and the medical community and unqualified judges.
Doctor Kairys said, some doctors felt that CPS were incompetent and their reports were a waste of time because CPS often failed to follow up sufficiently on the cases that doctors and hospitals report.
The doctors who are most likely to observe physical abuse only account for two to three percent of abuse reports filed. The majority comes from school teachers and other mandatory reporters.[ Parental Rights Under Microscope as Accusations of Child Abuse Mount, Thursday, February 07, 2002, By Robin Wallace Fox News]
According to a reliable source, a Public Health Official, during Sports Injury Prevention discussion during a requested meeting by concerned advocates with state Cabinet For Health and Family Services, said. “Its like the fox watching the hen house.” Doctors are reluctant to report Sports Injuries caused or allowed to be caused by Coaches, because the gravy train. Their referrals of injured Athletes by Coaches will cease, if they report Coaching Athlete Abuse and Neglect.
Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies were first established in response to the 1974 CAPTA which mandated that all states establish procedures to investigate suspected incidents of child maltreatment. This program provides specialized welfare services that seek to prevent abuse and neglect of children. The Child Protective Services program receives, screens and investigates allegations of child abuse and neglect.
Participating states are to have “in effect” certain laws and procedures regarding child abuse and neglect. The participating state has satisfied its duty so long as it has actually enacted the necessary law or created the necessary procedure.
For instance in KY, Kentucky Revised Statutes Sec. 620.040 provides: (1) Upon receipt of a report alleging abuse or neglect by a parent, guardian, or person exercising custodial control or supervision, pursuant to KRS 620.030(1) or (2), the recipient of the report shall forthwith notify the Cabinet for Health and Family Services or its designated representative, CPS, the local law enforcement agency or Kentucky State Police, and the Commonwealth’s or county attorney of the receipt of the report unless they are the reporting source.
A reliable source reported that after the Death of a 15 year old high school Football Athlete, CPS refused to investigate the Death, because the case had already been adjudicated in District Criminal Court. That was unlawful. The Death was never adjudicated in Juvenile Court.
The County Attorney has the final decision as to whether formal charges will be filed for Child Athlete Abuse and/or Negligent Supervision of Child Athletes.
A complete autopsy with internal examination is mandated by law when the death of a child appears to indicate child abuse prior to the death, occurs as a result of an accident, occurs under the age of 40 and there is not past medical history to explain the death, is sudden and not explained, when the death of a human being and the decedent is not receiving treatment by a licensed physician and there is no ascertainable medical history to indicate the cause of death.
HSAAs often do a magnificent job doing what they are contracted to do and what they have authority to do, managing and administrating Interscholastic Games and Competitions, playoffs and tournaments. Most do not include sports practices or JV Games.
High School Athletic Association Rules, Regulations and By-Laws are not and should not be an assumed part of the Government or an imaginary part of the Criminal Justice System.
• This imagination would be and is a Phony Masquerade of Legal Interpretation using Assumed Legal Authority. For example, KHSAA Rules, Regulations and By-Laws are not part of the Kentucky Criminal Code. Adjudications using that pretense are way out of bounds.
• The KHSAA has no Legal Authority governing Catastrophic Child Athlete Injuries and Death during football or any other practice. Adjudication for any type Criminal Conduct is not carried out in the KHSAA hearing room, but in a Court of Law.
• For example: The Kentucky Unified Juvenile Code, Child Protection Laws, KRS 600-645 are the Criminal Code governing Catastrophic Child Athlete Injuries and Death.
• Adjudication for Catastrophic Child Athlete Injury and/or Death requires establishing the facts of the case, defining the Law and interpreting the applicable Law.
Example: “The monster question is if the Florida High School Activities Association, the self-governing, self-righteous, self-appointed, all-knowing autocracy of Florida sports.” [Michael Batchelder, FHSAA Is The New High School Bully, The Tampa Tribune, Published: November 15, 2008]
The News is that High School Athletic Associations are not above the Law. ” Senate President Pro Tem Katie Stine , R-Southgate, KY said Tuesday. She has introduced legislation that would allow high-school athletes and their schools to obey court orders without fear of punishment from the Kentucky High School Athletic Association. “An agency such as the KHSAA is not above the law.” She also said Kentucky high schools should be encouraged to follow the law, not ignore it [http://www.kentucky.com/2009/03/11/721477_amendment-would-limit-khsaas-authority.html – Lexington Herald Leader, Mar. 11, 2009]
When Children are endangered, maltreated, harmed and damaged by abnormal Coaching behaviors or anyone, who fails their Child Protective Custody or fails to Properly Supervise Child Athletes, as any other Reasonable Coach or person would supervise athletes in similar coaching situations, these incidents are mandated to be properly Reported, Investigated and Adjudicated by the Criminal Codes of Child Protection, in Juvenile or Family Court. That has not been the case except occasional Child Athlete Sexual Abuse.
The Rat Maze for Justice for Abused and Neglected Child Athletes leading-up-to and including Juvenile and Family Court Systems is a complex journey in the United States.
When Child Protective Laws are reaffirmed, validated and enforced, by those who have ignored and overlooked them in the past, as the Supreme Rule to be adjudicated in Juvenile and Family Court Systems for Child Athletes, the additional systems that have shared the Complex Justice Journey and battered Justice for Child Athletes with Obstacles, for Abused and Neglected Child Athletes, will realize their responsibility.
Public Health Services, Social and Child Welfare Systems, Education and Awareness Groups, Federal and State High School Athletic Associations will toe the line. They will adhere to the standard of Care for Child Athletes i.e: Duty to conform to the legitimate Rules and Standards of Children’s Human Rights, Child Protection, Proper Supervision, Care and Welfare during Sports Participation.
Coaches can dramatically influence the lives of Child Athletes. Most of our Coaches are mentors, leaders and role models. Great Coaches teach their Athletes the values of life and living, in addition to Athletic play and performance. A Great Coach mentors a player into a star, role model and a hero for a lifetime and many generations afterward.
80% to 90% of Coaches do a tremendous job Coaching our Child Athletes. But 10% to 20% “don’t know any better”, cannot be educated and manifest abnormal Coaching Behaviors. Sadly, as within all professions and trades, they necessitate Regulation and Litigation.
Coaches are victims too, because they are blindsided by ignorance of the Laws of Child Protection and supervision. As any profession, a few bad apples can spoil the lot and several can spoil the orchard.
Many Amateur Coaches and Athletes are shocked to learn that they can be liable Criminally and Civilly for injuries they inflict, cause, create or allow to be inflicted, caused or created, directly or indirectly on Their Athletes or Opponent Athletes during practice or play, even in contact sports though they comply with High School Association rules, regulations and by-laws.
Why? Becuase they Maltreated, Endangered, Abused and / or Neglected and Damaged, Serioulsy Injured or Death to Child Athletes and violated Child Protection Laws. High School Athletic Association Rules, Regulations and By-laws are not Legal Authority.
In Kentucky, after a recent Football Athlete Death in 2008, advocates for Child Sports Safety found that the Child Athlete Abuse and Neglect Laws and Procedures were properly enacted in the state. However, the Child Athlete Abuse and Neglect Laws and Procedures were not Enforced following his Death.
Unfortunately, Enforcement of Child Protection Laws with proper Reporting by Doctors, Through Investigations and Statutory Adjudications in Juvenile or Family Courts are the ultimate deterrent for unlawful Coaching Behaviors that cause or allowed to be caused Maltreatment, Endangerment, Abuse and / or Neglect, Damage, Serious Injury or Death to Child Athletes.
Juvenile and Family Court Justice will facilitate the Prevention of Non-Accidental, Preventable Child Sports Injuries and Promote Child Athlete Safety.
Criminal Prosecution with or without conviction is the most effective deterrent to endangerment, maltreatment, neglect and abuse of Athletes.
The likelihood, probability and chance of Criminal Prosecution of the Coach is the most effective deterrent to the Risk of Criminal Prosecution and Civil Suit and Litigation of the Coach.
Because 45,000,000 Children Participate in Competitive Sports in the United States every year and with popularity of Sports rapidly growing and because Child Athlete Abuse and Neglect are the exclusive jurisdiction of Juvenile and Family Courts, these Courts “will need more time, staff expertise, and resources to perform the necessary administrative functions necessary for Justice” for the Abused and Neglected Child Athlete in Juvenile and Family Court Systems.
In response to an increasing demand to provide judicial leadership to improve the legal system and the administration of justice relating to juvenile and family court issues in their communities, states and the nation, the membership of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) at it’s annual conference in San Antonio, on July 23, 2003, endorsed the NCJFCJ Recommendations for Modification of the ABA Canons of Judicial Ethics. [National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Recommends Modification of Canons of Judicial Ethics
• 100% of all Catastrophic Child Athlete Injuries and/or Death that are Non-Accidental and Preventable, that are not inherent or natural to the game in which the Child Athlete participates, are the result of Child Athlete Abuse or Negligent Supervision by the Head Coach.
• This is an urgent call for Intervention by Juvenile and Family Court Systems for the Administration of Justice for the Abused and Negligently Supervised Child Athletes who have sustained Catastrophic Child Athlete Injuries and Death and Sexual Abuse.
• Lawmakers have ignored, overlooked and omitted Child and Youth Athlete Maltreatments, Endangerments and Abuse and have failed to enforce current law for all vulnerable, violated, at risk populations, including our Athletes which are additionally a “Health Disparity Population”.
• Laws on the Books: TITLE I—CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT ACT Sec. 101. Lawmakers have Failed Subtitle A. General Program that has not included Athletes and Sec. 111. Child Abuse Information Exchange that has not included Athletes. This is a Simple Solution.
[Preventing Child Abuse in Judo by Mike Buckle
Courts and Sports A Current Update, by Nick C. Nichols
“A modern day up-to-date approach to the present status of recreational injuries associated with “Courts and Sports” can be best understood by reviewing the basic principles of law, findings and facts involved in the leading sports injury cases Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F.2d 516, (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, S.Ct. 275) and Tomjanovich v. California Sports, Inc., No. H-78-243, 1979 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9282 (S.D. Texas Oct. 10, 1979). These underlying cases provide the basic legal foundation and requirements which are necessary in litigation involving recreational injuries in order to establish the legal principles for liability and recovery in sports injury cases. The basic legal principles and holdings set forth in the Hackbart and Tomjanovich cases are alive and well today and should be considered when evaluating a case that involves sports injuries in modern litigation. These cases and their holdings relate to sport injury litigation involving the individual player or corporate owner regarding negligence, intentional tort and gross negligence and normally are not connected from a products liability theory.
“This paper will discuss the general principles as set forth in Hackbart and Tomjanovich and will also provide information on recent cases which involve the same basic principles as discussed.
“Since the decisions of Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., and Tomjanovich v. California Sports, Inc., many courts have continued to hold that an injury resulting from an intentional tort, negligence, or recklessness, may have grounds for recovery of damages for the injured athlete. However, the majority of cases have established liability through an intentional tort involving illegitimate conduct not within the rules of the game or by the establishment of recklessness. While many courts have rejected a negligence cause of action, the defense of the assumption of risk doctrine has proven very effective in defeating cases for the plaintiff, as well as, the consideration of public policy. Some of the cases in which these legal principles, tort theories and defenses were involved are mentioned in this paper.
“In Knight v. Jewett, 834 P.2d 696 (California 1992), the plaintiff brought action for negligence and assault and battery after she was injured by the defendant during a friendly game of touch football. Early into the game, the defendant ran into the plaintiff during a play, and the plaintiff requested that the defendant not play so rough, which he acknowledged. However, on the next play the defendant collided with the plaintiff, knocking her down, and stepping on her hand. The injury to the plaintiff’s hand ultimately resulted in the amputation of her little finger.
“In discussing the defense of the assumption of the risk, as well as recklessness, the Supreme Court of California, in affirming the trial court’s granting of summary judgment, held that “a participant in an active sport breaches a legal duty of care to other participants – i.e., engages in conduct that may properly subject him or her to financial liability – only if the participant intentionally injures another player or engages in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity in the sport.” Furthermore, the Court held that the determination of whether assumption of risk bars recovery depends upon whether a particular defendant owed a duty to the injured plaintiff, not on whether the plaintiff acted reasonably in encountering a known risk. Ultimately, the Court ruled that although the defendant may have been reckless, he did not breach any legal duty, and thus assumption of risk barred recovery.
“The Supreme Court of Connecticut addressed the relevant public policy considerations in barring recovery for negligence causes of action in Jaworski v. Kiernan, 696 A.2d 332 (Conn. 1997). In Jaworski, the plaintiff was injured by the defendant during a co-ed soccer game when the defendant slide-tackled the plaintiff, which was against league rules. The Connecticut Supreme Court explained that public policy requires a balance in promoting vigorous athletic competition on the one hand and protecting those who participate on the other. In finding the proper balance, the Court concluded this balance is best achieved in an athletic contest to maintain an action against a co-participant only for reckless or intentional conduct and not for merely negligent conduct. Furthermore, the Court was influenced by the public policy concern of the possible flood of litigation that might result from adopting simple negligence as the standard of care to be utilized in athletic contests. The Court feared that with the number of athletic events that occurred in Connecticut every year, there existed a potential for a surge of lawsuits if it became known that simple negligence, based on an inadvertent contest rule, will suffice as a ground for recovery for an athletic injury.
It should be noted that in both Knight and Jaworski, no recovery was made by the plaintiff which normally occurs in sports injury cases.
“In 2003, the case of Marcus Williams v. Bill Romanowski, involved two Oakland Raiders National Football League players. The lawsuit arose after Romanowski confronted Williams during a scrimmage, ripped off his helmet and punched Williams in the face, crushing his left eye socket. The injury allegedly forced Williams to retire from football, and Williams sought $3.4 million in damages from Romanowski. Williams’ attorney argued that Romanowski had crossed the line and broken the rules. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Williams, yet they only found Romanowski liable for $340,000 in damages. Ultimately, the case settled out of court for $415,000.00.
“In Avila v. Citrus Community College District, 131 P.3d 383 (California 2006), a community college baseball player, Avila, brought a negligence cause of action against the college, the opposing team’s college, and others after he was hit in head with a pitch during the game. The Supreme Court of California held that the governmental statute for injuries stemming from hazardous recreational activity did not apply to immunize the opposing college, and that the opposing college had a duty not to increase harm inherent to the sport. However, the court ultimately ruled that the opposing college breached no duty to the player and no recovery was made.
“Thompson v. McNeill, 559 N.E.2d 705 (Ohio 1990) involved a case in which a player brought a negligence cause of action against a fellow golfer after the plaintiff golfer was struck in the eye by the ball. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that between the two participants in the sporting event, there was no liability for injuries caused by negligent conduct, but rather only injuries caused by intentional conduct could give rise to cause of action. Furthermore, the Court held that the injury to the plaintiff golfer in the course of the golf game was the result of foreseeable conduct, and thus the defendant golfer could not be held liable for any negligence since no duty was owed to protect plaintiff golfer from that conduct.
“The case of Turcotte v. Fell, 502 N.E.2d 964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986) involved a professional jockey that was injured in a fall during a thoroughbred horse race who brought action against another jockey, owner of horse which that jockey was riding, and owner-operator of the racetrack. The Court found that the plaintiff jockey consented to relieve defendant jockey of legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid crossing into plaintiff jockey’s lane of travel during the race. The Court also held that the racetrack owner-operator was not liable for alleged negligence in caring for the track because the plaintiff jockey’s participation in prior races, ability to observe the condition of the track, and his general knowledge and experience established that he was well aware of cupping conditions and possible dangers from them, and he accepted that risk.
“The case of Brocail v. Detroit Tigers, 2008 WL 87851 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th] 2008) involved a major league baseball player, Brocail, who brought suit against his employer, the Detroit Tigers, alleging the club was liable for injuries to his pitching arm. The 14th District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the baseball club, holding that the player’s claim that the club failed to provide a proper second opinion before recommending treatment for the player’s injured arm was preempted under the Labor-Management Relations Act.
“Furthermore, the Court held that the Michigan Workers’ Disability Compensation Act was the exclusive remedy for the player’s negligence claims, and the Act’s exclusive remedy provision barred claims seeking earnings-related damages. Finally, the Court found that the Michigan statue of frauds barred claims arising from the club’s alleged promises and fraudulent concealment relating to plaintiff’s medical treatment.
Also, in the case of Stringer v. Minnesota Vikings, 686 N.W.2d 545 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004), the estate of
“Stringer brought a wrongful death action against the head trainer, assistant trainer, and medical services coordinator as co-employees of football organization, following the player’s death from heat stroke. On appeal from a motion for summary judgment, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota held that the head trainer was entitled to co-employee immunity under workers’ compensation law. Although the Court held that the assistant trainer and medical services coordinator were not entitled to the co-employee immunity, the Court found that the actions taken by the assistant trainer and medical coordinator did not constitute gross negligence.
“In Hackbart, the incident that made the basis of the suit occurred during a September 16, 1973 game between the Denver Broncos and the Cincinnati Bengals. The incident occurred near the end of the first half when the Denver Broncos were leading by a score of 21-3. Following an interception by Denver free safety Billy Thompson of a pass intended for Cincinnati offensive back Charles “Booby” Clark, Dale Hackbart attempted to block Booby on the runback of the interception. After the attempted block, Hackbart remained on the ground, turned, and with one knee on the ground, watched the play following the interception. Clark stepped forward and struck a blow with his right forearm to the back of Hackbart’s head and neck and with sufficient force to cause both players to fall forward on the ground. A game film showed clearly what occurred, though no official viewed the incident at the time. After two weeks, the pain caused Hackbart to seek medical help where it was discovered that he had a serious neck fracture.
“The trial court ruled as a matter of law that the game of professional football is basically a business that is violent in nature; thus, the available sanctions are the imposition of penalties and expulsion from the game.
In reversing the trial court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held:
1. The principles of law governing infliction of injuries are not to be disregarded merely because the player’s injury occurs in the course of a professional football game. With regard to the issue of consent, the court noted that it is highly questionable whether a professional football player consents to injuries caused by conduct that is not within the rules of the game.
“The court specifically looked to the rules of football and found that punching and hitting with the arms about the face and head were prohibited by the rules and that undoubtedly, these restraints were intended to establish reasonable boundaries so that one football player would not intentionally inflict a serious injury on another.
2. The Tenth Circuit Court also determined that since it is essential that citizens be able to look to their government for redress, every injury wrongfully inflicted must be afforded some redress under the common law. The court found that the Colorado legislature had not chosen to change any of the common law areas for redress. Thus, the court stated that it was bound to follow the common law rules of redressing the injury inflicted.
3. In determining that the intentional tort of assault and battery was not the sole standard to be applied in a case involving players of professional sports, the court stated that “recklessness is an appropriate standard and that assault and battery is not the exclusive one, … these two liability concepts are not necessarily opposed to one another. Rather, recklessness under Section 500 of the Restatement might be regarded, for the purpose of analysis at least, a less included act.” The court went on to make the traditional distinction between assault and battery and recklessness, noting that with recklessness, the actor intents to do the act but does not intent to cause any particular harm.
4. Significantly, the court also directed that “on retrial, the admissibility of prior unrelated acts should be very carefully considered and should not be received merely for the purpose of showing that the defendant himself had violated rules in times past since this is not per se relevant.”
“Returning to the basic principles and rules of law handed down by the Hackbart case and utilizing the Tomjanovich case regarding contact injuries in sports, the “Hackbart test” can provide the equation for accepting a case which may be successful and prove to be a winner for the client. The principal inquiry, as it relates to the facts of the Hackbart case is: “was the act an accepted, usual, legitimate part of the game and traditionally considered a part of the game, i.e., was it a legitimate or fair hit?” This standard has become known as “Hackbart test” and should be applied to the underlying facts in each similar case. When analyzing a potential case by utilizing the “Hackbart test” one should consider the following:
1. Rules of the game;
2. Conduct of the player;
3. Intentionally reckless history of the player;
4. The Hackbart question, “is this contact a part of the game”?;
5. The duty of the owner;
6. The duty of the player; and
7. The conduct of the plaintiff.
“In analyzing a set of facts, the attorney should concentrate on the specific act or particular conduct in question and on how that conduct relates to or is connected with the particular sport. Also, the attorney should focus on any provocation by the plaintiff or the promotion of the event and the particular role of the plaintiff concerning the event. In violent situations, such as when a team fights, the investigative questions should include:
a. Who started or provoked the situation?
b. What role did the plaintiff play?
c. How could entire affair have been avoided?
“For other factors to consider in a sports injury case, see Niemczyck v. Burleson, 538 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. Ct. App.1976)(ages and physical attributes, skill level, knowledge of game, amateurs or professionals, protective uniforms or equipment, zestfulness of players) as well as, Ross v. Clouser, 637 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. 1982)(for application of Burleson factors).
“In closing, sports injuries that occurred during the practice of the game seem to be on the rise today in modern sports. A view of the sport industries for some reason indicate that the injuries seem to be more serious as the years go by. At the present time, while these injuries appear to be more common, the test for recovery remains fairly rigid and difficult and a full investigation of each prospective case should be made before making a decision to move forward and accepting the case considering the time and expenses involved. Finally – a word of advice, always consider the Hackbart case and the “Hackbart test”. Good luck!