Source: http://wdc-online.org/wdc-journal/archived-editions/play-ball-wisconsins-contact-sports-immunity-statute
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 12:37:00+00:00

Document:
By: James T. Murray, Jr., and Kevin Fetherston, von Briesen & Roper, s.c.
Everybody has witnessed, caused, or been the unfortunate recipient of a sports-related injury. Whether occurring in baseball, football, hockey, golf, or any other sport, everybody knows that sports-related injuries are not uncommon.
(1) Legislative purpose. The legislature intends by this section to establish the responsibilities of participants in recreational activities in order to decrease uncertainty regarding the legal responsibility for deaths or injuries that result from participation in recreational activities and thereby to help assure the continued availability in this state of enterprises that offer recreational activities to the public.
A participant in a recreational athletic activity that includes physical contact is liable for injury caused to another participant during the activity if the participant who caused the injury acted recklessly or with intent to cause injury.
A participant acts with intent to cause injury if he/she engages in conduct with the intent to cause injury by that conduct. An intent to cause injury exists where the participant either means to cause injury by his/her conduct or where an injury is almost certain to follow from this conduct.
A participant acts recklessly if his/her conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another. It occurs where a participant engages in conduct under circumstances in which he/ she knows or a reasonable person under the same circumstances would know that the conduct creates a high risk of physical harm to another and he/she proceeds in conscious disregard of or indifference to that risk. Conduct which creates a high risk of physical harm to another is substantially greater than negligent conduct. Mere inadvertence or lack of skill is not reckless conduct.
In considering the conduct involved in this case, you should consider the sport involved; the rules, regulations, customs and practices governing the sport, including the types of contact and the level of violence generally accepted; the risks inherent in the game and those that are outside the realm of anticipation; and the protective equipment worn. You should also consider the age and physical attributes of the participants and their respective skills and knowledge of the rules and customs of the game.
If you find that defendant engaged in conduct and intended to cause injury by that conduct, however great or small, or that defendant’s conduct was almost certain to cause injury in some way, however great or small, then defendant acted with intent to injure.
Radebaugh and his parents sued the Lake Mills School District, the Lake Mills Recreational Department, Radebaugh’s coach, the two umpires refereeing the game, and their insurers, alleging negligence.
Thus, the circuit court concluded that plaintiff’s claims against the coach and umpires were subject to Wis. Stat. §895.525(4m) and that plaintiff’s claims were barred pursuant to that statute because the coach and umpires were not reckless, as a matter of law. Radebaugh appealed.
Thus, pursuant to Wis. Stat. §895.525(4m) and appellate decisions interpreting and applying the contact sports immunity statute to sports-related injuries, a claimant pursuing a claim for a sports-related injury must be able to demonstrate reckless conduct; that is, that the defendant recklessly disregarded the safety of the claimant in causing the injury. The Noffke and Radebaugh decisions demonstrate that the courts will dismiss claims lacking evidence of recklessness. Those holdings are consistent with the legislative purpose for enacting the contact sports immunity statute -- to establish the responsibilities of participants in recreational activities in order to decrease uncertainty regarding the legal responsibility for deaths or injuries that result from participation in recreational activities and to help assure the continued availability in this state of enterprises that offer recreational activities to the public.
That said, there remain a number of questions about the applicability of Wis. Stat. §895.525(4m). Specifically, what impact will Wis. Stat.§895.525(4m) have on injury-causing conduct that falls within the custom or accepted violence of a given sport. For example, is a hockey player immune from liability if the injury causing conduct was subject to penalty or ejection from the game? What about injuries sustained from a hockey fight? What about a football player penalized or ejected for hitting a defenseless receiver? What about a pitcher that beans a batter in a baseball game? While participants in those sports may agree that such conduct falls within the custom and accepted violence of the sport, it remains to be seen whether such conduct is immunized under Wis. Stat. §895.525(4m), the contact sports immunity statute. Regardless, to recover for a sports-related injury, a claimant must be able to meet a higher burden than ordinary negligence -- there must be evidence of reckless conduct.
James Murray is a Shareholder in the Litigation and Risk Management Practice Group. He has tried over 150 cases to verdict, including drug and medical device, commercial fraud, product liability and insurance bad faith cases.
He is recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® in Commercial Litigation, Construction Litigation, Insurance Law, Personal Injury Litigation and Product Liability Litigation - Defendants. He is recognized by Wisconsin Super Lawyers® as one of the Top 10 Attorneys in Wisconsin. He was awarded an AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rating by Martindale-Hubbell®, the highest rating possible.
James is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers (Wisconsin Chair, 2006-2007; Regent, 2012-2016) and a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (President, Wisconsin Chapter, 2002), the Wisconsin Defense Counsel (President, 1988-1989) and the Defense Research Institute.
Kevin Fetherston is a member of the firm’s Litigation and Risk Management Practice Group. He focuses his practice on general tort litigation, business and 13 commercial litigation, and professional liability litigation. Kevin has extensive experience litigating complex cases and appeals in both state and federal courts.
Kevin is recognized as a Rising StarSM (2015-2017) by Wisconsin Super Lawyers® in General Litigation.
1 176 Wis.2d 901, 501 N.W.2d 28 (1993).
2 Lestina, 176 Wis.2d at 904-905.
5 See Wis. Stat. § 895.525(4m).
6 2009 WI 10, 315 Wis.2d 350, 760 N.W.2d 156.
7 Noffke, 315 Wis.2d 350, ¶16.
8 WIS JI – Civil 2020.
9 Radebaugh v. Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co., 2018 WI App 8, 379 Wis. 2d 767, 909 N.W.2d 210 (Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2017)(unpublished).
10 Id. at ¶¶ 6-11.
13 Id. at ¶ 3.
14 Id. at ¶ 34.

References: §895
 §895
 §895
 §895
 § 895
 v.