Spring Break
Court rules cheer as a contact sport
Cheerleaders afforded same protections as other physical athletes
Daniel King
Issue date: 2/11/09 Section: Sports
The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in a decision late last month that cheerleading is a contact sport, and therefore the participants assume the same risks as athletes in sports such as football and basketball.
Brittany L. Noffke, a high school cheerleader at Holmen High School in Holmen, Wis., sued her teammate, Kevin Bakke, the school district and the school's insurer when she suffered a fall in 2004.
The original court ruled she could not sue because neither her teammate nor the school behaved recklessly. The appeals court overturned the first court, saying cheerleading is not a contact sport and therefore she did not have to prove negligence. The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court on Jan. 27, declaring cheerleading a contact sport.
The court ruled: "Bakke was participating in a 'recreational activity' that includes physical contact between persons in a sport involving amateur teams."
They denied Noffke's claim that cheerleading was not a contact sport and said that contact did not have to be between opposing teams, but can be contact between teammates.
"It would have been chilling had the ruling gone the other way," said Bobby Biggs, Sacramento State head cheerleading coach. "The opposite ruling would have meant athletes could have sued their teammates for all sorts of injuries."
The American Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators were cheered by the Wisconsin decision.
Executive Director Jim Lord wrote, "The implications are that cheerleaders are afforded the same legal protections as athletes in basketball, football, etc. Cheerleaders and their parents then don't have to worry about being sued in the event that a cheerleader makes a mistake during a routine and an injury results."
Lawrence Levine, law professor at McGeorge Law School specializing in torts, said it didn't change, nor would it have changed anything in California had it gone the other way.
"The Wisconsin case has no impact whatsoever on California law," Levine said. "In California we have a primary assumption of risk regardless if the sport is a contact sport or not. According to the court, this allows people to not feel inhibited when they participate in recreational sports."
Wisconsin law makes a distinction between contact and non-contact recreational sports. California law makes no such distinction.
California Supreme Court ruled on recreational sports in Knight v. Jewett in 1992, prohibiting claims for injuries in a recreational game that occur during normal play of the game. Knight said the court would not grant liability for aggressive play in a game of touch football.
While the Knight ruling dealt with touch football, and therefore a contact sport, the California courts have used the ruling to deny claims in sports that are not contact sports. There have been cases since 1992 dealing with sports such as skiing, golf, swimming and diving, all relying on Knight to deny liability.
In a 1998 case, the California Supreme Court ruled on a case similar to the Wisconsin case. Aaris v. Las Virgenes Unified School District was a case of a San Diego area cheerleader who was tossed and didn't get caught properly and sued her cheer mates and the school district.
The Court ruled the cheerleader, Denning Aaris, knew the dangers of the stunt going in, and therefore assumed the risk involved. The justices wrote in the decision: "What goes up, must come down. This includes cheerleaders. Whenever gravity is at play with the human body, the risk of injury is inherent. While an appellate court has the power to change the law, we cannot change the law of gravity."
The court also stated Aaris' mother had signed a waiver of liability prior to the beginning of the season, and therefore, she could not now claim the school district was liable.
Since Knight, the California courts assign primary assumption of risk to the participant. This means the injured party would have to prove recklessness on the part of the teammate, coaches or school to be able to sue.
Daniel King can be reached at dking@statehornet.com
Brittany L. Noffke, a high school cheerleader at Holmen High School in Holmen, Wis., sued her teammate, Kevin Bakke, the school district and the school's insurer when she suffered a fall in 2004.
The original court ruled she could not sue because neither her teammate nor the school behaved recklessly. The appeals court overturned the first court, saying cheerleading is not a contact sport and therefore she did not have to prove negligence. The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court on Jan. 27, declaring cheerleading a contact sport.
The court ruled: "Bakke was participating in a 'recreational activity' that includes physical contact between persons in a sport involving amateur teams."
They denied Noffke's claim that cheerleading was not a contact sport and said that contact did not have to be between opposing teams, but can be contact between teammates.
"It would have been chilling had the ruling gone the other way," said Bobby Biggs, Sacramento State head cheerleading coach. "The opposite ruling would have meant athletes could have sued their teammates for all sorts of injuries."
The American Association of Cheerleading Coaches and Administrators were cheered by the Wisconsin decision.
Executive Director Jim Lord wrote, "The implications are that cheerleaders are afforded the same legal protections as athletes in basketball, football, etc. Cheerleaders and their parents then don't have to worry about being sued in the event that a cheerleader makes a mistake during a routine and an injury results."
Lawrence Levine, law professor at McGeorge Law School specializing in torts, said it didn't change, nor would it have changed anything in California had it gone the other way.
"The Wisconsin case has no impact whatsoever on California law," Levine said. "In California we have a primary assumption of risk regardless if the sport is a contact sport or not. According to the court, this allows people to not feel inhibited when they participate in recreational sports."
Wisconsin law makes a distinction between contact and non-contact recreational sports. California law makes no such distinction.
California Supreme Court ruled on recreational sports in Knight v. Jewett in 1992, prohibiting claims for injuries in a recreational game that occur during normal play of the game. Knight said the court would not grant liability for aggressive play in a game of touch football.
While the Knight ruling dealt with touch football, and therefore a contact sport, the California courts have used the ruling to deny claims in sports that are not contact sports. There have been cases since 1992 dealing with sports such as skiing, golf, swimming and diving, all relying on Knight to deny liability.
In a 1998 case, the California Supreme Court ruled on a case similar to the Wisconsin case. Aaris v. Las Virgenes Unified School District was a case of a San Diego area cheerleader who was tossed and didn't get caught properly and sued her cheer mates and the school district.
The Court ruled the cheerleader, Denning Aaris, knew the dangers of the stunt going in, and therefore assumed the risk involved. The justices wrote in the decision: "What goes up, must come down. This includes cheerleaders. Whenever gravity is at play with the human body, the risk of injury is inherent. While an appellate court has the power to change the law, we cannot change the law of gravity."
The court also stated Aaris' mother had signed a waiver of liability prior to the beginning of the season, and therefore, she could not now claim the school district was liable.
Since Knight, the California courts assign primary assumption of risk to the participant. This means the injured party would have to prove recklessness on the part of the teammate, coaches or school to be able to sue.
Daniel King can be reached at dking@statehornet.com
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Cheerleading Safety
posted 2/12/09 @ 8:45 AM PST
One thing you all left out in regards to this case is the fact the Spirit Rules have NO force of the law because they are written without any ministerial duties for coaches. (Continued…)
Post a Comment