N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DAPHNE INGR

AM , a single wom an, individually ; DW IGHT INGR AM , Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts, v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, by and through theDe pa

rtm e nt of the Inte rior, a

nd B ure a u of India n Affa irs, De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-35359 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-05892-R B L M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B
. Le ighton, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 3, 2016 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : W . FLETC HER , GOULD, a nd N.R
. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s . Afte r ora l a

rgum e nt, we de te rm ine d this c a se would be a ppropria te for
m e diation. W e the re fore re fe rre d the c a se to the Ninth C irc uit M e d iation Offic e and withdre w subm ission in a n orde r date d Oc tobe r 13, 2016. On Ja nua ry 27, 

# FIL ED FEB 28 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.2017, the C irc u it M e d iator issue d a n orde r c onc luding tha

t m e diation e fforts ha d be e n e x ha uste d a nd re turning thec a se to the pa ne l. W e now re subm it the c a se for de c ision a nd issuea m e m oran dum

disposition on the

m e rits. Da phne Ingram

and he r son Dwight Ingra m brought suit a

g a inst the Unite d Stat e s unde r the Fe d e ra l Tort C la im s Ac t (“ FTC A” ), a lle ging tha

t e m ploy e e s of C hie f Le sc hi High Sc hool, a t riba l sc hool, we re ne glige nt in a dm iniste ring e ligibility re quire m e nts a

nd in m onitoring Dwight’ s sa fe t y during a sc hool footba ll gam e . Afte r a

be nc h tria l, the distric t c ourt e nte re d judgm e nt in fa vor of the Unite d Stat e s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a nd we a ffirm
. On Se pte m

be r 10, 2011, sixte e n-y e ar-old Dwight Ingra m c o lla pse d while pla y ing footba l l for C hie f Le sc h i in Puy a llup, W a shington. Sc hool offic ia ls c a lle d an am bula nc e and Dwight wa s ta

ke n to M ary

B ridge C hildre n’ s Hospita l, whe re he wa s e ve ntua lly

dia gnose d with a

suba c ute infa

rc t, or stroke
. C hie f Le sc hi is a

triba l sc hool, a

n d its e m ploy e e s a re c o nside re d to be a c ting within thesc ope of fe de ra l e m ploy m e nt unde r the FTC A. In 2012, Da phne Ingram file d a sta nda rd Form 95 c la im with theDe pa

rtm e nt of the Inte rior, B ure a u of India n Affa irs, a lle ging $15 million in da m a ge s for Dwight’ s pe rm a n e nt bra in dam a ge a s a

re sult of thestroke and he r loss of Dwight’ s c o n sortium
. The U.S. de nie d he r c l a im

two m o nths la

te r. The Ingram s the n file d a c o m pla int for
2dam a ge s on both a pe rsona l injury

the ory an d loss of c onsortium

the ory . The pa rtie s stipula

te d to bifurc a ting thetria l a s to Dwight’ s pe rsona l injury c la im and Da phne ’ s loss of c onsortium c l a im . Following a thre e -day be nc h tria l, the distric t c ourt e nte re d judgm e nt in fa vor of the Unite d State s. In W a shington, footba

l l c oa c h e s “ who know[] , or in the e xe rc ise of re a s ona ble c are s hould know, tha t one of the pla

y e rs is phy sic a lly

unfit to e n te r the gam e ,” have a

duty not to “ pe rm it[] , pe rsua d e [] , or c oe rc e [] suc h pla y e r to pla y .” Morris v . Union High Sc h. Dist. A, K ing C ty . , 294 P. 998, 999 (W a sh. 1931). W a shington’ s “ Za c k e ry

Ly ste dt la

w” furthe r provide s tha

t “ [a ] y outh a

thle te who is suspe c t e d of susta ining a c o nc ussion or he a d injury in a pra c tic e or ga

m e sha ll be re m ove d from

c om pe tition a t tha t tim e ,” and “ m ay

not re turn to pla

y until [he or she ] is e va luate d by

a lic e nse d he a lth c are provide r tra i ne d in the e va luation a nd
m ana ge m e nt of c onc ussion a nd re c e ive s writte n c le aranc e to re turn to pla y from that he a lth c are provide r.” W a sh. R e v. C ode § 28A.600.190(3), (4). The Ingram s argue d , at tria l a

n d on a ppe a l, tha t C h ie f Le sc h i e m

ploy e e s bre a c he d

both the ir c om m on la w duty and duty

unde r the Za c k e ry

Ly ste dt la

w by pe rm i tting Dwight to pla y in the fa ll 2011 football se a son a nd by fa i ling to re m o ve him from the Se pte m be r 10, 2011 ga

m e a fte r he suffe re d two hits to the he a d.

3The distric t c ourt, re ly i ng on Athle tic Dire c tor Ada m s’ s te stim ony , found that C hie f Le sc hi ha d re c e ive d a nd re vie we d

“ the a ppropria te a uthoriz a tions” prior to a l lowing Dwight to pla y in the fa l l 2011 se a son. In pa rtic ula r, Dwight’ s Oc tobe r 2009 phy sic a l e xam ination m e t the re quire m e nts of the W a shington Intersc hola stic Ac tivitie s Assoc iation polic y an d C h ie f Le sc hi Ha

ndbook. M ore ove r, the distric t c ourt c onc lude d tha

t Dwight did not inform

his c oa c he s of his he a d injury susta ine d during pra c t ic e on June 13, 2011, a nd the re fore C hie f Le sc hi e m ploy e e s we re not on notic e of the ne e d to obta in m e dic a l c le aranc e for Dwight prior to his re turn to pla

y . Se e W a sh. R e v. C ode § 28A.600.190. Although c onte ste d, the se fa c t ua l c onc lusions we re ne ithe r im p la usible nor illogic a l, a

nd we re supporte d by te stim ony provide d at tria l. The distric t c ourt re a sona bly re lie d upon thete stim ony of thre e c oa c he s tha

t Dwight did not inform the m tha t his he a d hurt a

t the Se pte m

b e r 10 ga m e . Se e N e w ton v . N

at’l Broad. C

o., Inc
. , 930 F.2d 662, 671 (9th C ir. 1990) (he ighte ne d de fe re nc e due to a

tria l c ourt’ s c re dibility

de te rm inat ion). Ne ithe r the gam e vide o nor witne ss te stim ony

pre se nte d

at tria l e sta

blishe d a n obse rva ble de c line in Dwight’ s pla

y or a ffe c t . C

f . Sw ank v . Valle

y C hristian Sc h. , 374 P.3d 245, 250 (W a sh. C t. App. 2016). Even a ssum ing the Ly ste dt la w c re a te d a duty

to re m ove pla y e rs a fte r a

hit tha t c ould c a use a c onc u ssion, without re ga rd to a pla y e r’ s la c k
4of sy

m ptom s, it wa s not illogic a l, im p la usible , or without ba sis for the tria l c ourt to c onc lude tha

t the two hits Dwight susta ine d during pla

y we re not of thety

p e to le a d a tra ine d obse rve r to suspe c t a he a d injury . Evide nc e supporte d the tria l c ourt’ s c o nc lusion tha

t a re a sona

ble , tra ine d c oa c h would not ha ve suspe c te d tha

t Dwight ha d susta ine d a

he a d injury

prior to his c olla

pse during theSe p te m

be r 10, 2011 ga m e . AFFIRM E D.

5