Opinion ID: 1952386
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Negligence Claim against Simonds

Text: [¶ 5] The existence of a duty is a question of law. Joy v. E.M.M.C., 529 A.2d 1364, 1365 (Me.1987). Duty involves the question of `whether the defendant is under any obligation for the benefit of the particular plaintiff.' When a court imposes a duty in a negligence case, `the duty is always the same-to conform to the legal standard of reasonable conduct in the light of the apparent risk.' Trusiani v. Cumberland & York Distribs., Inc., 538 A.2d 258, 261 (Me.1988) (quoting W.P. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 53 at 359 (5th ed. 1984)). We have previously stated that a college has a legal duty to exercise reasonable care towards its students. Isaacson v. Husson College, 297 A.2d 98, 103 (Me.1972). See also Schultz v. Gould Academy, 332 A.2d 368, 370 (Me.1975) (duty owed by private boarding school); Milliken v. City of Lewiston, 580 A.2d 151, 152 (Me.1990) (duty owed by public junior high school). That duty encompasses the duty of college coaches and athletic trainers to exercise reasonable care for the health and safety of student athletes. Dudley v. William Penn College, 219 N.W.2d 484, 486 (Iowa 1974); Tan v. Goddard, 13 Cal.App.4th 1528, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 89, 92-3 (1993). See generally Cathy Jones, College Athletes: Illness or Injury and the Decision to Return to Play, 40 Buff. L.Rev. 113 (1992). [¶ 6] By granting the motion for a summary judgment on the negligence claim against Simonds and St. Joseph's, set forth in Counts II and V of Searles's complaint, the court failed to recognize Simonds's duty to exercise reasonable care for the health and safety of Searles. Whether Simonds breached that duty when Searles played basketball is a question of fact for the jury to consider. The invocation of the summary judgment procedure does not permit the court to decide an issue of fact, but only to determine whether a genuine question of fact exists. The court cannot decide an issue of fact no matter how improbable seem the opposing party's chances of prevailing at trial. Tallwood Land & Dev. Co. v. Botka, 352 A.2d 753, 755 (Me.1976). [¶ 7] In his opposition to the defendants' motion for a summary judgment, Searles was obligated to produce specific controverting facts exposing the existence of a genuine issue. Cloutier, Barrett, Cloutier & Conley, P.A. v. Wax, 604 A.2d 42, 44 (Me.1992). Searles alleged that Simonds knew or should have known Paul Searles should not have been playing basketball in his condition, and should not have played plaintiff. Searles's response to the summary judgment motion included citations to the deposition testimony of Peter Wheeler, St. Joseph's trainer, who stated that he recognized the nature of Searles's problem, was concerned that Searles's continued play would result in greater injury to his knee, and that he discussed Searles's medical problem with Coach Simonds. Searles also alleged that on more than one occasion he advised Simonds that his knees were bothering him, but Simonds continued to play Plaintiff in games despite knowledge of Plaintiff's condition and general knee soreness as early as January, 1989. The record before the court contains sufficient evidence to raise an issue of material fact as to Simonds's breach of his duty to exercise reasonable care for the health and safety of Searles. [¶ 8] To prevail on his negligence claim, Searles must prove that Simonds's breach of his duty to Searles proximately caused an injury to the plaintiff. Rowe v. Bennett, 514 A.2d 802, 804 (Me.1986). Proximate cause is that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. Wing v. Morse, 300 A.2d 491, 495 (Me.1973) (citation omitted). Proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury. Klingerman v. SOL Corp. of Maine, 505 A.2d 474, 478 (Me.1986). [¶ 9] Searles presented medical testimony from Dr. John Herzog that his condition was likely due to history overuse and that the more you play, the longer it's going to hurt and you may have a chronic problem develop. [2] Searles presented evidence that Simonds was aware of his knee injury and continued to play him in games. Searles further alleges that Simonds was so intent on keeping Searles in games that he allowed him to skip basketball practices to preserve his knees for games. Searles himself testified as to the painful injuries he suffered playing basketball. The medical testimony and Searles's own account of his condition create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he suffered permanent injury as a result of playing basketball at St. Joseph's.