my son's tooth was broken at football practice

What is the name of your state?Texas. On 10-8-04 during football practice, my son' tooth was broken. After participating in a drill with one of the coaches, a group of players were instructed to wait on the sideline. During this time one of the other players grabbed my son's face mask on his helmet, and yanked on it breaking my son's tooth in the process. The actions of this player were done without any provocation from my son. The player admits to breaking my son's tooth. The parents refuse to pay for my son's dental bills.
Are the parents liable for this deliberate act, and also what responsibility does the school have in this matter?

[badapple40]

None. You lose. If you don't want johnny hurt, don't sign him up for sports.

[cmorris]

The parents MAY be responsible. The school certainly isn't. Try sending a letter, certified mail return receipt, asking for the cost of medical bills. If that doesn't work, see an attorney. Many attorneys offer free initial consultations. Or there is always small claims court.

Again, there may or may not be a case. And even if there is, it may not result in a favorable outcome for you or be worth your time. Do you have insurance?

[badapple40]

No, that is not correct, participation in sports is considered a bar to recovery for injuries rationally stemming from the sport, and, in football, where you have a penalty for facemasking, among other things, it is considered part of the sport -- even at practice -- even if done intentionally.

But, like she said, if you want to go to a lawyer to get a free consult to tell you the same thing, feel free.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally Posted by badapple40

No, that is not correct, participation in sports is considered a bar to recovery for injuries rationally stemming from the sport, and, in football, where you have a penalty for facemasking, among other things, it is considered part of the sport -- even at practice -- even if done intentionally.

But, like she said, if you want to go to a lawyer to get a free consult to tell you the same thing, feel free.

My response:

Wrong. You're misunderstanding the rule of law in this regard. Our writer said - -

After participating in a drill with one of the coaches, a group of players were instructed to wait on the sideline.

So, the "facemasking" did not occur during, nor was it a part of, game play. And, even if it did, this is still an intentional act and intentional acts of violence are not part of game play. E.g., read Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2.

IAAL

[badapple40]

I disagree with you, it is not that the conduct itself be intentional, like you would see in a assault or battery, but that there be intent to injure. Arguably, grabbing a facemask, while an intentional act, can be done without the intent to cause injury. And the standard in texas, where the poster is from, is, relating to sports injuries, undecided.

Although this Court has not spoken on the issue of liability in the context of sports injuries, the lower courts of this state and the high courts of many other states have. Three models of liability have emerged. A majority of courts have adopted a "reckless or intentional" standard in a variety of sports-related situations, requiring an injured plaintiff to prove that the participant-defendant's conduct was either reckless or intentionally injurious. n1 And some courts have extended this standard to situations in which the defendant is a nonparticipant in the sporting event, as the court of appeals determined Southwest Key to be here. See Morgan v. State, 90 N.Y.2d 471, 685 N.E.2d 202, 207-08, 662 N.Y.S.2d 421 (N.Y. 1997) (holding that, in assessing whether an owner or operator of an athletic facility has violated a duty of care toward voluntary participants injured on the premises, the applicable standard should include whether the conditions caused by the defendant's negligence were unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers inherent in the sport); Kline v. OID Assocs., 80 Ohio App. 3d 393, 609 N.E.2d 564, 565 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (applying the reckless or intentional standard when an injured indoor soccer game participant sued the owner of the facility in which the game was played as well as the organizer of the soccer league). However, a few states adhere to the traditional negligence standard, under which a defendant owes a duty of ordinary care. See Estes v. Tripson, 188 Ariz. 93, 932 P.2d 1364, 1366 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997); Auckenthaler v. Grundmeyer, 110 Nev. 682, 877 P.2d 1039, 1043-44 (Nev. 1994); Lestina v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 176 Wis. 2d 901, 501 N.W.2d 28, 32-33 (Wis. 1993). Finally, there is the "inherent risk" standard, previously advocated by some MEMBERS of this Court, which states that both co-participant and nonparticipant defendants owe no duty to protect a participant from risks inherent in the sport or activity in which he has chosen to take part. Phi Delta Theta Co. v. Moore, 10 S.W.3d 658, 663, 42 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1029 (Tex. 1999) (Enoch, J., dissenting to improvident grant); see also West v. Sundown Little League of Stockton, Inc., 96 Cal. App. 4th 351, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 849, 854-55 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (applying the inherent risk standard in a suit by an injured little league player against local and national little league organization and coaches); Davis v. Greer, 940 S.W.2d 582, 40 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 62, 582-83 (Tex. 1996) (Gonzales, J., opinion on denial of application for writ of error) (arguing that the inherent risk standard is preferable to the reckless or intentional standard); Scott v. Pac. W. Mountain Resort, 119 Wash. 2d 484, 834 P.2d 6, 13-14 (Wash. 1992) ("A defendant simply does not have a duty to protect a sports participant from dangers which are an inherent and normal part of a sport.").

Southwest Key Program v. Gil-Perez, 81 S.W.3d 269 (Tx. 2002).

Football is a rough, contact sport. Here, someone was injured, on the sidelines I admit, from an activity for which the sport provides a penalty. If the sport provides a penalty for it, it is foreseeable that it will occur and is, thus, part of the game.

On a separate note, the OP is trying to hold the parents responsible for the tort of their minor child. That won't fly in Texas. Rodriguez v. Spencer, 902 S.W.2d 37.

I wouldn't take this case...

Originally Posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

My response:

Wrong. You're misunderstanding the rule of law in this regard. Our writer said - -



So, the "facemasking" did not occur during, nor was it a part of, game play. And, even if it did, this is still an intentional act and intentional acts of violence are not part of game play. E.g., read Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 2.

IAAL

A little more information... While waiting on the sideline as instructed by the coach, my son was talking aloud to " an imaginary friend ". The young man in question approached my son and asked him if he was going to continue with his conversation. My son's answer was " maybe ". It was at this point that the young man grabbed his facemask, yanked and broke his tooth. I see intent !.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally Posted by badapple40

I disagree with you, it is not that the conduct itself be intentional, like you would see in a assault or battery, but that there be intent to injure. Arguably, grabbing a facemask, while an intentional act, can be done without the intent to cause injury. And the standard in texas, where the poster is from, is, relating to sports injuries, undecided.



Southwest Key Program v. Gil-Perez, 81 S.W.3d 269 (Tx. 2002).

Football is a rough, contact sport. Here, someone was injured, on the sidelines I admit, from an activity for which the sport provides a penalty. If the sport provides a penalty for it, it is foreseeable that it will occur and is, thus, part of the game.

On a separate note, the OP is trying to hold the parents responsible for the tort of their minor child. That won't fly in Texas. Rodriguez v. Spencer, 902 S.W.2d 37.

I wouldn't take this case...

My response:

Again, I must disagree with you. Nothing in your cited case tells me that "sitting on the sidelines" has anything to do with the "play" of the sport, or is in any way part and parcel of the game of football in general. Penalties are assessed during active play, and on players. These children were not in "active" play at the time of the incident.

At the very least, the "act" was done in a reckless manner, and in derogation of the child's rights and safety. All because they were dressed in football garb doesn't give "license" to anyone to assault and batter someone else. Are you saying that dressing in the outfit, and sitting on the sidelines, qualified as a "close proximity" to the game, and the play of the game, itself?

So, under your theory, if I were to dress up as a player, and walk over to where the kids were sitting, and yanked on a kid's face guard, I could actually walk away without Civil penalty?

IAAL