Negligence is the most common type of lawsuit that recreation and fitness facilities — and the professionals who manage them — will face. It seems like every time someone is injured at a recreation or fitness facility, a lawsuit is filed. The law, however, does not require that owners and operators ensure everyone using the facility is safe from every conceivable injury. Accidents happen, especially when people are engaged in activities that involve physical contact or other forms of strenuous movement.
While not liable for all injuries, recreation and fitness facilities do have a duty to reduce risks to visitors by providing a safe environment for activity, providing instructions on how to participate in an activity or use equipment, and warning users of the risks inherent to the activity.
Log in to view the full article
Negligence is the most common type of lawsuit that recreation and fitness facilities — and the professionals who manage them — will face. It seems like every time someone is injured at a recreation or fitness facility, a lawsuit is filed. The law, however, does not require that owners and operators ensure everyone using the facility is safe from every conceivable injury. Accidents happen, especially when people are engaged in activities that involve physical contact or other forms of strenuous movement.
While not liable for all injuries, recreation and fitness facilities do have a duty to reduce risks to visitors by providing a safe environment for activity, providing instructions on how to participate in an activity or use equipment, and warning users of the risks inherent to the activity.
Another important duty of recreation and fitness facilities is to assess the skills and abilities of activity participants. This duty is especially important when matching up individuals and teams. “Mismatching" — pairing individuals of greater skill or size with those of a more limited skillset, or allowing children of different ages to compete — is a leading cause of many negligence lawsuits. One case that illustrates the importance of providing instructions, as well as the proper matching up of participants, is Greener v. Iturralde, Case No.: 37-2020-00041382-CU-PO-CTL.
Abnormally dangerous sparring
Jack Greener enrolled in an entry-level class at Del Mar Jiu-Jitsu Club in San Diego. With 10 minutes left in class, the students were taking part in a sparring session. Greener was matched with one of the gym’s instructors, Francisco Iturralde, a second-degree black belt. During the sparring session, Iturralde flipped Greener using an advanced takedown technique. When performed properly, the force of the move would normally cause the other person, in this case Greener, to be thrown away, creating space between the two fighters and allowing the person who performs the move, Iturralde, the space necessary to reach a more dominant position.
However, instead of Greener being thrown, his head became trapped between Iturralde’s body and the mat. With Greener unable to roll away when Iturralde initiated the move’s somersault, a significant amount of force and Iturralde’s full weight was transferred onto Greener’s neck. As a result, Greener’s cervical vertebra was crushed, resulting in a C4-C5 incomplete spinal cord injury.
Greener, who was 23 at the time, underwent multiple surgeries, was hospitalized several months, and suffered multiple strokes and other ailments. Greener had incomplete quadriplegia, which means he has weakness or paralysis in all four limbs. He can walk with effort, but spends most of his time in a wheelchair.
As a result of his injuries, Greener sued the instructor — Iturralde — and the owner of the Del Mar Jiu-Jitsu Club — Michael Phelps — for medical expenses, loss of earnings and emotional distress, alleging that the defendants committed negligence and gross negligence. In their defense, Iturralde and Phelps argued that they could not be negligent because Greener assumed the risk of injuries inherent in the activity — jiu-jitsu.
The jury, therefore, needed to answer the question: Did Iturralde “unreasonably increase the risk to Greener over and above those inherent in Brazilian jiu-jitsu sparring?” In finding that the technique used by Iturralde fell outside the normal bounds of sparring and was abnormally dangerous, the jury concluded that Greener could not assume the risk of the injury suffered.
A person can only assume those risks that are inherent in the activity — that is, something that is normally associated with the activity. Since the technique was outside of the normal scope of risks involved in jiu-jitsu sparring, assumed risk does not apply, and the jury could move on to the question of whether Iturralde and Phelps were negligent in causing Greener’s injuries.
Having determined that Greener did not assume the risk of his injuries, the court next addressed whether Iturralde’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Greener’s injuries. In particular, the court was asked to decide whether Iturralde was negligent in causing Greener’s injuries because of the dangerous techniques he used, thereby increasing the risk of injury to Greener over and above the usual risk inherent in the activity.
In support of this argument, Greener claimed that there were many safer alternatives to the specific technique used by Iturralde. Greener also pointed to the fact that the technique used by Iturralde was not one taught at Del Mar Jiu-Jitsu Club, and that both Iturralde and Greener lacked a familiarity with it. Greener’s experts also claimed that the technique used against someone with Greener’s lack of skill was abnormally dangerous and unreasonably increased the risk over and above those inherent in jiu-jitsu sparring.
The four-week trial concluded with two days of deliberation and the jury awarding Greener more than $46 million — nearly $638,000 for loss of past and future earnings, more than $1.3 million for past medical expenses, $8.5 million for future medical expenses, $11 million for past pain and suffering, and $25 million for non-economic losses (such as pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life).
Unreasonable risk increase
While the jury award of more than $46 million might be enough of a lesson for recreation and fitness professionals to change how they structure and supervise activities, the court’s decision in Greener v. Iturralde provides a few other important lessons.
First, in determining whether someone created an unreasonable risk of injury, the courts use what is known as a reasonable person standard. The reasonable person standard examines whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have acted in the same manner. In this case, the court needed to consider whether other jiu-jitsu instructors have performed the same technique on a novice student. If so, it would have been reasonable for Iturralde to do so. If not, then the court would be correct in finding Iturralde negligent.
Second, while not highlighted in the Greener case, the issue of mismatching — allowing Iturralde, a second-degree black belt, to spar with a novice — should have been avoided. As the instructor, Iturralde should have simply had a classmate with skill equal to that of Greener spar with him. It is important when running classes, leagues and competitions that the organization match the skills and abilities of participants. As mentioned previously, “mismatching” is one of the leading causes of many negligence lawsuits.
Third, while some may look at the decision in Greener v. Iturralde as creating difficulties for martial arts-related clubs, the truth is that it still imposes the same duty on club owners as always. Gym owners and operators have a duty to not increase the risk to participants. Participants should be evenly matched and only be allowed to perform moves once they are properly trained and possess the required skills.Â
