Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P was an accomplished soccer player who had volunteered to assist in coaching a team of young soccer players in a program of D. At some point during practice, P kicked a soccer ball into a soccer goal. As he passed under the goal's metal top rail, or crossbar, to retrieve the ball, he jumped up and grabbed the crossbar. The soccer goal was not anchored to the ground, and, as he held on to the upper crossbar, P fell backward, drawing the weight of the crossbar onto his face. He suffered multiple severe facial fractures which required surgery and the placing of three titanium plates in his face. P sued Ds alleging that he was injured by Ds' negligence. Ds asserted the defense of contributory negligence. The soccer coach who had invited P to help coach the soccer players testified that he had not inspected or anchored the goal which fell on P. The coach also testified that the goal was not owned or provided by D, and he did not believe that it was his responsibility to anchor the goal. D presented testimony that the condition of the goal was open and obvious to all persons. D maintained that the accident was caused solely by P's negligence. P provided evidence that players commonly hang from soccer goals and that his actions should have been anticipated and expected by D. P also provided testimony that anchoring goals is a standard safety practice in youth soccer. P's attorney proffered a jury instruction on comparative negligence. The judge declined and instructed the jury on contributory negligence. The jury concluded that D was negligent and that D's negligence caused P's injuries. The jury also found that P was negligent and that his negligence contributed to his own injuries. P was barred from any recovery. The trial court denied P's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co