Participants in most sports face some risk of injury. Such injuries as a baseball player being struck by a bat or ball would not be unexpected. However, the law has seen many cases where participants (or spectators) sue for injuries that occur at sporting events. Maryland’s highest court this week addressed such a case in American Powerlifting Association v. Cotillo.
According to the opinion, Mr. Cotillo entered a weightlifting competition known as the Southern Maryland Open Bench Press and Deadlift Meet. Before the meet, the lifters were told they could use their own spotters, or spotters provided by the organizers of the meet. Spotters were to assist the participants in the event of a failed lift. Each spotter would stand at either end of the bar, with their hands inches away. If they touched the bar the lift would be disqualified.
Mr. Cotillo chose to use spotters provided by the meet, though there were members of his lifting club present that he could have asked. The meet was at a High School, and two high school boys with lifting experience were asked to serve as spotters. Cotillo told them not to touch the bar or he would be disqualified. The spotters were instructed that if a lifter hesitated to await a referee’s instructions before grabbing the bar, but if the bar was headed down not to wait for the referee.
During the meet, Mr. Cotillo wore a special shirt to help him lift more weight. On his third bench press, he had trouble lifting 530 pounds. Apparently his shirt tore during the lift, and the judge instructed the spotters to move in. Before they could grab the bar, it struck Mr. Cotillo’s jaw causing injuries. He then sued the meet organizers and the school, claiming that the spotters had been negligently trained.
The trial judge granted judgment for the defendants, and the case made its way on appeal to the Court of Appeals. The issue was whether Cotillo had assumed the risk of the injuries sustained in this sporting event, including the risk that the spotters might negligently fail to protect him. The Court held that Cotillo had assumed the risk of his injuries, and could not recover.
The doctrine of assumption of risk holds that a person who intentionally and voluntarily exposes himself to a risk, consents to relieve others of liability for that risk and cannot recover damages from them. Maryland law requires three elements for this defense: 1) knowledge of the risk, 2) appreciation of the dangers of the risk, and 3) voluntarily confronting the risk. The Court noted that in sports, there are certain risks that are common knowledge, so that a person will not be heard to claim that he did not know or appreciate the risk.
The Court reviewed other cases involving sports and the various risks associated with them. These include the risk that other participants in the sport may be negligent or fail to act reasonably. A participant does not assume every risk when they engage in a sport. They do not assume the risk that others will act intentionally or recklessly to injure them.
In this case, the Court held that Cotillo was injured because he failed to lift the weight. Even assuming that the spotters were negligently trained, this was a risk clearly contemplated by the sport, and he had waived the right to complain when injured by the risk.