WV Upholds Summary Judgment in Favor of School for Student Injury

In C.L. v. Upshur County Bd. of Education, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the summary judgment of the Defendant based on the lack of evidence supporting breach or causation.

The underlying facts are fairly straightforward. H.L., a middle school student, injured her ankle during her school softball team’s?practice while attempting a slide in a “figure four” position. H.L. and her teammates wore tennis shoes during the practice. H.L. and her teammates were coached on how to execute a figure-four slide.?H.L. filed suit, alleging negligence against her school coaches. H.L. contended that?the coaches created an increased risk of injury to H.L. by conducting sliding practice on a?gymnasium floor while H.L. wore tennis shoes.?

Following discovery, the school board filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The Court has explained that “[i]n a negligence suit, a plaintiff is required to show four?basic elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages.” Hersh v. E-T Enters., Ltd. P’ship, 232 W.?Va. 305, 310, 752 S.E.2d 336, 341 (2013), superseded by statute on other grounds, W. Va. Code?§ 55-7-27. Both parties agree that H.L.’s coaches owed a duty of reasonable care to H.L. and that H.L. suffered damages.

The trial court ruled that the second and third elements—breach and causation—were absent because the coaches exercised reasonable care in teaching H.L. to slide in the figure four?position and there was no evidence that the coaches’ conduct was a foreseeable cause of H.L.’s?injury.

The undisputed testimony established that?H.L. did not execute the slide as instructed, stopping abruptly and falling, instead of using her?momentum to carry her along the floor. Because H.L.’s momentum did not carry her along the?floor, her shoe could not have become caught on the floor in the manner alleged by H.L. The expert's testimony that H.L.’s shoe “likely” or “potentially g[o]t caught on the floor” was mere?speculation. The expert admitted she was not sure if H.L.’s shoe got caught on the floor. Additionally, although the expert testified that the coaches created a dangerous condition by?allowing H.L., who was nervous, to attempt to slide, the expert did not testify that H.L.’s injury was a foreseeable cause of H.L. attempting to slide while nervous, apart from her?theory that H.L.’s shoe became caught on the gymnasium floor. Likewise, although H.L.'s expert criticized the teaching method the coaches employed, she did not give an opinion as to how H.L.’s?injury was a foreseeable cause of H.L. attempting the slide in that circumstance, apart, again, from?her theory that H.L.’s shoe became caught on the gymnasium floor. Moreover, while the medical expert?testified that H.L.’s injury was “[c]onsistent with someone catching their foot and it twisting,” the doctor did not testify that the injury was inconsistent with the coaches’ testimony as to how H.L.?injured herself, nor did the doctor testify that H.L.’s injury was consistent with someone having?a shoe become caught on a gymnasium floor while sliding. Consequently, none of the testimony?created a material question of fact as to whether H.L.’s injury was?foreseeably caused by performing the sliding drill in tennis shoes on the gymnasium floor.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the undisputed evidence did not create a material question of fact as to whether?H.L.’s coaches’ conduct—teaching figure-four sliding in a gymnasium while the players,?including H.L., wore tennis shoes—was a foreseeable cause of H.L.’s injury.

DISCLAIMER: The information and materials contained in this post are provided for general informational purposes only and are not intended to be legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed nor should any such relationship be implied. Readers and visitors should not act upon any information contained herein without seeking professional legal counsel from a qualified attorney. For more information, contact Shuman McCuskey Slicer PLLC.