LIABILITY AND GYMNASTICS By Elliot C. Der/ler Instructor of Physical Education Hunter College of the City Univ. of N.Y. It is the purpose of this article to ~c quaint physical education personnel with the legal aspects of negligence inherent in the area of gymnastics. Many physical education teach~rs may be presenting unsafe skills to their students in activity classes. Either through a lack of knowledge about progressive teach!ng techniques, or a lack of understandmg about spotting methods, the instructor does not always act as a wise and J?rudent i~. dividual. Oftentimes, the result IS an accI· dent by the student, followed by a law suit against the instructor, andlor the local Board of Education. Even if direct negligence cannot be proven against the teacher, the resulting harm to the program and the individuals involved is considerable. This writer has recently completed a study of litigation in gymnastic a.ccidents since 1900· a study encompassmg all states. The 'study was concerned only with cases whereby judicial decisions were reached i.e., cases that came before the courts. ' The preponderance of litigation arises in New York and California, as the majority of other states still follow the doctrine of school district immunity. This doctrine holds that agencies of the govern· ment, including school districts, are not liable for their torts. A tort may be de· fined as any wrongful act, not involving a breach of contract, for which a civil action will lie. "The legal rule under the common law is that districts are not liable for damages caused by the negligent acts of their offices and employees."1 However, California and New York are among the few states that impose tort liability directly upon school districts. These states have enacted "save harmless" laws, whereby employees are "saved" from financial " harm" by making the districts indemnify them. Thus, the districts are liable for the payment of damages assessed by a court for injuries to a student, arising from the teachers negligence, when acting in the line of duty. Court cases in gymnastics occur from a variety of causes. Some examples include: defective equipment, overcrowded or over· lapping facility spaces, insufficient train· ing and instruction, inadequate supervision , insufficient warning of danger by the in· structor, lack of progressive teaching and failure to heed pertinent safety precau· tions. An example of a case where the physical education teacher was held liable, will give the reader an insight into court de· cisions in this area of litigation.2 The- material facts state . that during a regularly scheduled physical education class, the plaintiff, an eighteen year old,
200 pound high school student, fractured his right fibula while attempting to do an "elephant vault" over a parallel bar draped with mats. A springboard was used as the vaulting apparatus. The plaintiff ran a~out 30 yards, gained impetus from the spnng· board, and while turning in the air, struck his foot against the bar and fell to the bare floor. The floor on the far side was supposed to be covered with a double m1!t. The student apparently fell short of the mat. The instructor was on the landing side, presumably to spot. It had been ascertained that a number of accidents had occured while doing this particular stunt. In fact, two days p:-evious to this injury, a boy had broken his arm in the very same exercise. _ _ In ['lew -10rk :;tate, phYSical educatIOn is required under the Educa,~ion L.aw; Sec· tion 695 of this law states that It IS the duty of the regents to adapt .rules det~r mining the subjects to be mcluded m courses of physical training." Section 696 states "that the regents have prepared a syllabus which describes numerous exercises and acrobatic feats." The acrobatic feat in which the plaintiff was injured is not included, b~t is a combination of two or more exerCises. It was concluded from an 'expert' witness that the somersault over the elevated bars is not generally taught and should be. attempted only by exceptional and highly skilled pupils_ The court stated that it is the duty of a teacher to exercise reasonable care to prevent injuries and to assign pu~ils to. ~':1ch exercises that are within their abilIties. Also the teacher must properly and adequat~ly supervise these activities. Failure to do so constitutes negligence on the part of the instructor. The instructors negligence may be predicted upon the following facts: ,failure to have mats in place on the far Side of th e bars which would have reduced the hazard of ~he fall ; assigning the plaintiff, who was not exce ptionally skilled, to an exercise beyond his prowess which was not recommended in the regents syllabus; the knowled«e of existing inherent danger, a~ several boys had been inj ured in the same exercise. Initially the verdict was against the inMructor and the Board of Education. Th" verdict against the Board of Education was set aside by the trial justice, but not that against the instructor. The court stated that "where a teacher was liabl e for injuries sustained by a student, the. Boa.rd of Education was not chargeable With lIability under the doctrine of 'respo~dent superior' , but could only be held lIabl~ for a failure to perform a statutory duty. There was no proof that the Board failed to provide a competent teacher to supervise the gymnasium work; no defect of structure or equipment was claimed, and that the occurrence- of the accident could not be attributed to the failure of the Board to adopt rules in respect of :nain. tenan ce and operation of the gymnasIUm. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgments and orders against the defendant physical education instructor, a~d _affirmed the judgments and orders dismiSSing the complaints as to the Board of Education in this case. 3 By careful analysis of court de.cis~ons as summarized in the above case, It IS possible for physical education personnel to anitcipate how courts will rea~t in. similar circumstances. We must keep In mmd that each case is decided on its own material facts but often facts are similar and trends in decisions and court reasonings
are discernible. It is only by studying the common law emanating from case deci sions in gymnastic accidents, that a set of legal guidelin es can be developed for the physical educator, the coach, and the adnllnIstrator. Arthur Daniels, in the CPEA's 58th Annual Procoodings succinctly lists many of the reasonable precautions one should take to safeguard himself and his program. It is worthwhile to restate them now: l. know- the health statu s of your subjects 2. do not permit participation in activity without medical approval following ~er iou s illness or inj ury 3. make frequent inspection of all equipment used in your program 4. conduct yo ur activities in the safest way possible 5. be absolutely certain that personnel assigned to cond uct a.n activity.. are qualified for that partlc~l~r actlVlty 6. make certain that the activity IS Within the ability of the student to perform 8. know the procedures for administering first aid and summoning medical attention , or removing the student to medical attention 9. do not treat injuries 10. provide supervision that is both adequate in quantity and quality 11. have at all times the safety of your stud en ts and their general welfare uppermost in your program 12. make certain that adequate and progressive instru ction is carefully given before performance is permitted 13_ keep an accurate and complete record _ of accidents and injuries 4 In conclusion, I would like to remind !he reader that there is always an elemen t of risk in teaching motor skills as gymnastic stunts. The intent of this article is to acquaint physical education personnel with liability factors in the teaching of gymnastics. It certainly was not my intent to use a scare-type technique, as this might di ssuade beginning gymnastic teachers beca use of the negligence risks involved. However, if the instructor is aware of his responsibilities, if he acts in a reasonable and prudent fashion, keeping the aforementioned safeg uards in mind , he has fulfill ed his duty , to the stud ents, to the stud ents, to the Board of Education, and most important, to himself. I- Hamilton, Robert R. , and Reutter, E. Edmund, Jr., Legal Aspects of School Board Operation, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 19582-Govel v. Board of Education, 48 N.YS 2d, 1944 3-Ibid, 267 App. Div., 1944 4-Daniels, Arthur S., " Legal Aspects of Physical Education" , 58th Annual Proceedings, CPEA, 1955 BACKGROUND DATA Elliot C. Derfler, Instructor of Physical Education, Hunter College of th e City University of New York, BA, lVIS in Education , finishing Ed. D. Teachers College, Columbia University Formerly taught in Yonkers school system for 8 years on secondary level where . I coached va~sity gymnastics_ Gymnastic ream undef~ated in competition for 3 consecutive years, 1961-64, winning Section I title (N.Y. State) each year Coach of the Year in Gymnastics, Section I, 1963-64 sponsored by Macy Westchester Newspapers. Former president of Gymnastic Coaches and Officials organization, Westchester County.
7