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

negligencesustained
plaintiffdefendantnegligenceregulation

Related Cases

Gillespie v. Southern Utah State College, 669 P.2d 861, 13 Ed. Law Rep. 873
View Case »
Sherry v. East Suburban Football League, 292 Mich.App. 23, 807 N.W.2d 859
View Case »
City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 83 Cal.App.5th 458, 299 Cal.Rptr.3d 463, 2022 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9962
View Case »
Mullins v. Westmoreland Coal Co., 10 Va.App. 304, 391 S.E.2d 609
View Case »
Kahn v. East Side Union High School Dist., 31 Cal.4th 990, 75 P.3d 30, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 103, 180 Ed. Law Rep. 312, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7851, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9787
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lestina v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 176 Wis.2d 901, 501 N.W.2d 28, 55 A.L.R.5th 863

Facts

Robert F. Lestina, a soccer player, filed a personal injury action against Leopold Jerger and Jerger's homeowner's insurer after suffering leg injuries during a recreational soccer match. The incident occurred when Lestina, who had just scored a goal, collided with Jerger, the opposing team's goalkeeper, who allegedly slide tackled him. The league's rules prohibited such maneuvers to minimize injury risk. Lestina claimed that Jerger's actions were negligent and reckless, while Jerger contended that the collision was incidental as both players attempted to kick the ball.

The plaintiff (45 years of age) was playing an offensive position for his team and the defendant (57 years of age) was the goalkeeper for the opposing team on April 20, 1988, when the injury occurred. Shortly before the plaintiff was injured, he had scored the first goal of the game. After his goal the plaintiff regained possession of the ball and was about to attempt a second goal when the defendant apparently ran out of the goal area and collided with the plaintiff.

Issue

What is the standard of care in Wisconsin for a recreational sports player who is alleged to have caused injury to another player during a recreational team contact sports competition?

What is the standard of care in Wisconsin for a [recreational] sports player who is alleged to have caused injury to another player during and as part of the [recreational team contact sports] competition?

Rule

Negligence, rather than recklessness, is the appropriate standard to govern cases involving injuries during recreational team contact sports. This standard allows for the consideration of various factors, including the nature of the sport, rules, accepted customs, inherent risks, and the specific circumstances of the incident.

Negligence, rather than recklessness, is appropriate standard to govern cases involving injuries during recreational team contact sports, in light of ability of negligence standard to subsume all factors and considerations presented by such sports depending on circumstances, and in light of sufficient flexibility of negligence standard to permit vigorous competition by players.

Analysis

The court determined that the negligence standard is flexible enough to encompass the unique factors present in recreational team contact sports. It allows for a thorough evaluation of a player's conduct based on the specific context of the game, including the rules and the nature of the contact involved. The court emphasized that the likelihood of injury is a known risk in such sports, and thus, the conduct of players should be assessed with this understanding in mind.

Determination of whether recreational team contact sport player's conduct is negligent, or contributorily negligent, should include consideration of material factors of sport involved, rules and regulations governing sport, generally accepted customs and practices of sport including types of contact and violence accepted, risks inherent in game and those outside realm of anticipation, presence of protective equipment or uniforms, and facts and circumstances of particular case including participants' ages, physical attributes, respective skills at game, and knowledge of rules and customs.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, establishing that negligence is the governing legal standard for injuries incurred during recreational team contact sports.

For the reasons set forth, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

Who won?

The injured player, Robert F. Lestina, prevailed in this case as the court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in his favor. The court's ruling established that the standard of care applicable to participants in recreational team contact sports is negligence, allowing Lestina to recover for his injuries sustained during the game. The court's decision emphasized the importance of evaluating player conduct within the context of the sport, thereby supporting the injured player's claim.

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Robert F. Lestina, stating that the negligence standard, properly understood and applied, is suitable for cases involving recreational team contact sports.

You must be