Town Granted Immunity in Cheerleading Fiasco
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 26, 2017
Other Education Government Government Agencies Lawsuit & Dispute Lawsuit
Summary: Blog post about a case where the doctrine of governmental immunity applied to protect a town from liability when a cheerleader was injured during practice.
If you have a question or concern about education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .
In the case of Sevigny v. Daviau, a cheerleader sued the town for injuries sustained during practice by her cheerleading coach’s alleged negligence. In law, negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another. In order to succeed in this claim, the cheerleader must prove that (1) the town and coach owed a duty of care to the cheerleader, (2) the town and coach breached that duty and, (3) the breach of duty was a direct cause of the cheerleader’s (4) real and compensable injury. Generally, a town is entitled to governmental immunity, which protects the state and its agents from liability when acting in the furtherance of their duties. However, the town may not be protected if they violate or fail to perform a specific duty or directive that results in injury.
On February 26, 2012, the cheerleader sustained serious personal injuries during a cheerleading team practice in the gymnasium of the town of Thompson’s public high school. The cheerleader was part of a human pyramid formation when it collapsed. The cheerleader alleged that the negligence of the coach allowing other cheerleaders to participate in inappropriate antics and mischief that resulted in the pyramids collapse. The town moved for summary judgment, a preemptive decision by the court in favor of the town over the cheerleader, claiming their immunity barred the cheerleader’s ability to sue the town for negligence.
The court found in favor of the town, and ruled that it was immune for the acts of the coach, even if he was negligent, since the coach’s action were discretionary as a voluntary activity. The court did not find any written orders, regulation, directives or policies by the town which mandates a manner in which the cheerleading practice was to be conducted.
If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.
Source: Sevigny v. Daviau, 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1734 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 30 2013)