In Dennehy v. E. Windsor Reg'l Bd. of Educ., 2022 N.J. LEXIS 978 (Oct. 26, 2022), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a high school coach’s acts and omissions in deciding to have the team practice in an area adjacent to an ongoing soccer practice, leading to a student being injured, is governed by a simple negligence standard, rather than the heightened standard of recklessness applied in Crawn v. Campo.
On September 9, 2015, then 17-year-old Morgan Dennehy was injured during field hockey practice at Hightstown High School. On said day, field hockey practice was scheduled for 3:45p.m. on a turf field, however, the boys’ soccer team was practicing there until 3:45p.m. At around 3 p.m., field hockey coach, Dezarae Fillmyer, instructed the field hockey players to warm up in an area between athletic fields. During the warm-up, Dennehy was struck at the base of her skull with a soccer ball. Dennehy filed suit against the East Windsor Regional Board of Education, Hightstown High School, and three individuals, including coach Fillmyer. The allegations were that Dennehy sustained injuries as a result of the defendants’ "failure to supervise; prevent potential and foreseeable dangerous conditions; provide appropriate safeguards; and post suitable warnings of potentially dangerous conditions.”
The defendants moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court holding that the plaintiff had to show that the defendants’ acts or omissions rose to the degree of recklessness described in Crawn v. Campo, 136 N.J. 494, 507-08 (1994) and Schick v. Ferolito, 167 N.J. 7, 18-20 (2001). The Appellate Division reversed, holding that a simple negligence standard applied. The New Jersey Supreme Court found that the coach’s acts and omissions alleged in this case are governed by the simple negligence standard.
Both Crawn and Schick involved instances where the parties were actively participating in a recreational activity (in Crawn, the incident occurred during a softball game, and in Schick during golf.) In Crawn, the Court ruled “that the duty of care applicable to participants in informal recreational sports is to avoid the infliction of injury caused by reckless or intentional conduct.” 136 N.J. at 497-98. Later in Schick, the Court held that “the heightened standard of care for causes of action for personal injuries occurring in recreational sports should not depend on which sport is involved and whether it is commonly perceived as a ‘contact’ or ‘noncontact’ sport.” 167 N.J. at 18-19.
The Court found that, unlike Crawn and Schick, in this case, Fillmyer was not a participant in the recreational activity, and even if she was, the plaintiff was not injured by any activity associated with field hockey. In fact, the plaintiff was struck by a soccer ball that came from another field. In this case, the essence of plaintiff’s claim against Fillmyer is based on her choice of location and timing for the informal practice prior to the scheduled one. As the Court noted, “[i]n these and other similar settings, parents have the right to expect that teachers and coaches will exercise reasonable care when in charge of their children and that courts will not immunize a teacher’s negligence by imposing a higher standard of care.”
New Jersey Athlete's Injury Caused by Coach's Decision is Governed by Simple Negligence Standard