Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceaffidavitmotionsummary judgmentburden of proofsustainedduty of caremotion for summary judgment
plaintiffdefendantnegligenceaffidavitmotionsummary judgmentwillduty of caremotion for summary judgment

Related Cases

Hanson v. Kynast, 24 Ohio St.3d 171, 494 N.E.2d 1091, 33 Ed. Law Rep. 455, 24 O.B.R. 403
View Case »
Dutrisac v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 749 F.2d 1270, 113 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3532, 98 Lab.Cas. P 10,318
View Case »
Sandison v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 64 F.3d 1026, 143 A.L.R. Fed. 735, 64 USLW 2172, 103 Ed. Law Rep. 56, 4 A.D. Cases 1478, 11 A.D.D. 534, 7 NDLR P 65, 1995 Fed.App. 0276P
View Case »
Daniel v. Ferguson, 839 F.2d 1124
View Case »
Clark, By and Through Clark v. Arizona Interscholastic Ass’n, 695 F.2d 1126, 8 Ed. Law Rep. 246
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kennedy v. Syracuse University, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1995 WL 548710

Facts

The plaintiff, a scholarship athlete on the Syracuse University gymnastics team, suffered a serious wrist injury during practice when his hand grip failed while working on the high bar. He was using new grips provided by the coaching staff, which differed from his usual grips only in their fastening mechanism. After the injury, his coaches and teammates attempted to provide emergency first aid, but the removal of the grip may have exacerbated his injury. The plaintiff claims the University was negligent for not having an athletic trainer present during practice.

Plaintiff was a scholarship member of the Syracuse University gymnastics team during the 1991-92 academic year. During a regularly scheduled practice in March 1992, plaintiff suffered a serious wrist injury while working on the high bar. The injury occurred when plaintiff's right hand grip failed, causing his wrist to lock in place and be slammed against the bar as his body continued to swing over the bar.

Issue

Did Syracuse University breach its duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to have an athletic trainer present during gymnastics practice, and did this breach cause the plaintiff's injuries?

Did Syracuse University breach its duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to have an athletic trainer present during gymnastics practice, and did this breach cause the plaintiff's injuries?

Rule

To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach caused an injury. Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In order to establish a prima facie case of negligence, plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that defendant owed him a duty of care, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) an injury resulting from that breach. Burke v. Warren County Sheriff's Dep't, 890 F. Supp. 133, 137 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) (Munson, J.).

Analysis

The court found that the University met its burden of proof by providing an affidavit from a hand specialist, Dr. John Fatti, who stated that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the nature of the gymnastics activity and not by the absence of an athletic trainer or the actions of his coaches. The plaintiff conceded that he assumed the risk of the initial injury and failed to provide evidence to counter Dr. Fatti's opinion regarding causation.

Because plaintiff concedes that he assumed the risk of the initial fracture, the injury that he claims was caused by the acts or omissions of the University was the compartment syndrome. As stated above, Dr. Fatti has opined in his affidavit that the compartment syndrome suffered by plaintiff was the direct result of the slamming of the wrist against the high bar. Plaintiff has failed to submit any evidence which would serve to put Dr. Fatti's opinion into question.

Conclusion

The court granted the University's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff could not establish the necessary elements of his negligence claim.

Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted as to plaintiff's negligence claim.

Who won?

Syracuse University prevailed in this case because the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the University breached its duty of care or that any alleged breach caused his injuries. The court emphasized that the plaintiff's own expert did not dispute the causation opinion provided by the University's expert, leading to the conclusion that the University was not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

As a result of this affidavit, the University has met its burden of showing that plaintiff will be unable to establish an essential element of his case, and therefore the burden shifts to plaintiff who has failed to refute Dr. Fatti's opinion.

You must be