Case brief summary
Gross negligence means acting so carelessly about someone's safety that it would shock fair-minded people. Battery is touching someone without consent. Assault is making someone reasonably fear an immediate unwanted touching.
Facts
A 13-year-old new player, Andy, was smaller than his teammates. After a loss, a much bigger assistant coach lifted him without warning and slammed him to demonstrate tackling, breaking his arm.
Procedural history
Andy and his parents sued the coach for gross negligence, assault, and battery. The trial court dismissed the case, ruling football is inherently dangerous and the facts didn't support the claims.
Issue
Did the family's complaint include enough facts to allow a jury to decide claims of gross negligence, assault, and battery against the coach?
Holding
The court ruled that the complaint stated valid claims for gross negligence and battery, but not for assault, so those two claims should go forward and the case was sent back to the trial court.
Reasoning
The size difference, coach's authority, and force used could show the coach disregarded Andy's safety, supporting gross negligence. Whether Andy agreed to being tackled this way was disputed, possibly supporting a battery claim.
Opinions
Majority (Lacy): Found enough facts to support gross negligence and battery claims, but not assault, and sent the case back for trial.
Concurrences (Kinser, concurring in part and dissenting in part): Agreed on gross negligence but believed playing football meant Andy consented to tackling instruction, so no battery claim should proceed.
Dissent: None separate from the partial dissent by Kinser, who also partly concurred.