Writing Homework Help

A significant comment may include any comparison to your own case brief or assigned video, any pertinent insight from your current employment about how you fulfill the holding, disagreement with the holding with rationale, etc. You will be expected to compare / contrast with current events. You should use relevant legal terms in your analysis.

Kahn v. East Side Union High School District

31 Cal. 4th 990 (2003)

Facts: The individual plaintiff, Olivia Kahn, was a 14-year-old novice swimmer declared a claim against the defendants, East Side Union High School District, Andrew McKay, and does 1-10 as defendants. Kahn was participating in a swim meet as a member of the Mt. Pleasant High School women’s junior varsity swim team on October 13, 1994, when she broke her neck while diving into a shallow pool that was three and one-half foot deep off a starting block. In her complaint, Kahn alleged the injury was caused in part by her coach who failed to provide her with instruction of how to dive safely into a shallow pool. Kahn also alleged inadequate supervision by the coach and that the coach breached duty of care owed to her by insisting Kahn dive at the meet despite her lack of expertise, fear of diving and the coach’s promise to excuse her from diving.

Kahn did not have prior experience as a competitive swimmer prior to joining the high school team. She was a competent swimmer and had prior experiencing diving into deep water. Khan had a fear of suffering a head injury from diving into shallow water. Khan practiced and observed by her coach who stated she needed more practice. Her teammates commented that Khan had gone in too deep when she dove into the water. The heart of this case is about lack or training/supervision by her coaches and being pushed into executing a dive into shallow water in which the plaintiff was not comfortable doing. The coach’s obligation was fulfilled in warning about diving too shallow, inspected the pool’s, and supervised the practices. The coach informed the participant of the risks through oral instruction and the coach did not increase the risk of injury nor was there any sign of gross negligence. The unforeseeable risk of the plaintiff does not hold the defendant at fault or imply the defendant has liability for the injury.

The defendant East Side Union High School District motioned for a summary judgement. The defendant denied any liability stating, “plaintiff assumed the risks inherent in the sport of competitive swimming when she voluntarily joined the swim team and dove into the pool on the day she was injured.”

The plaintiff opposed the defendant motion for summary judgement and offered a Red Cross safety training manual for swim coaches.

The manual notes that diving into water less than five feet deep is dangerous and that 95 percent of swimming injuries occur in water five feet deep or less. ? The manual states: ?“Even an experienced diver can be seriously injured by diving improperly ? or diving from starting blocks without proper training and supervision.” ? The manual also states that “[i]t is important that swim coaches take all reasonable precautions to prevent accidents in shallow water entries.” ? Coaches should require persons learning the racing dive to perform adequate shallow dives from the deck into the deep pool on a consistent basis, then require students to perform a shallow dive from a starting block into the deep pool. ? This is important, the manual declares, “because of the increased velocity the swimmer achieves from entering the water from an increased height.” ? Then, “[w]hen the swimmer’s skill level has been consistently established from the starting block in deep water and the swimmer is able to maintain his or her racing start depth at two to two and a half feet, the swimmer may proceed to the shallow end. ? The coach then takes the swimmer through the same steps, beginning with shallow dives from the deck and then moving up to the block.”

The high school coach stated he followed the manual recommendations. According to McKay, based on his observation of Kahn, “her technique in the diving pool had improved to the point that she could dive off the deck into the racing pool.” Unless one first has a duty based on a status or special relationship to others, then there is no duty to inspect, warn, or supervise.

Issue: Does the lack of adequate training of an athlete override the inherent risks of injury in competitive swimming?

Holding: Yes, sufficient facts were established to show a connection between injury and the lack of adequate training and supervision by the coaches.

Rationale: The state supreme court concluded that the lower courts had erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the basis of Kahn having assumed the inherent risk of injury associated with diving into a shallow pool during competitive swimming. The plaintiff does have a duty for themselves to utilize due care and the defendant explained the risks that are integral to the activity. The person (being the defendant) who is in charge of the activity has no duty to protect one from the inherent risks of the activity. Additionally, there was no degree of negligence provided by the plaintiff to demonstrate the defendant at fault for the injury. The state supreme court remanded the case “for further proceedings consistent with this opinion”, therefore, reversing the appeals court judgment.