Negligence_safety manuals_not distributed_not proximate cause
The trial court erred by denying defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict on plaintiff's claim that Little League, Inc. was liable under a direct negligence theory for
an accident which occurred during a pop fly drill at a baseball practice. Plaintiffs' evidence
did not show that the minor plaintiff's injuries would not have occurred if Little League had
distributed its safety publications to individual coaches.
ELMORE, Judge.
In the spring of 1999, nine-year-old Nicholas Rothenberg (the
minor plaintiff) played for a Little League baseball team coached
by Mike Meissner (Coach Meissner). Plaintiff Joseph Rothenberg,
the minor plaintiff's father, was the assistant coach of the team.
On the afternoon of 17 April 1999, Coach Meissner conducted a pop
fly drill at practice. Coach Meissner would hit a ball from where
he was standing near third base to players in the outfield. The
minor plaintiff dove for a ball in an attempt to catch it, but the
ball struck him in the mouth. Plaintiffs filed a negligence action against Little League
Baseball, Inc. (Little League), Mountaineer Little League, and
Terry Warren, the safety director of Mountaineer Little League.
Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to defendant
Terry Warren. In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that Little
League was negligent under two theories: 1) on the basis of
respondeat superior through the actions of Coach Meissner; and 2)
in failing to conduct training sessions or distribute safety
publications to coaches. Trial began on 27 October 2003, and
plaintiffs proceeded with both theories of negligence against
Little League.
As evidence of direct negligence, plaintiffs introduced
several coaching instruction manuals as exhibits to show that
Little League publishes materials on the subject of coaching
drills. Coach Meissner testified that he did not receive any of
these coaching manuals; the only publication he received from
Little League was the 1999 Official Regulations and Playing Rules.
Plaintiffs' evidence of negligence by Coach Meissner tended to
show that on the day of the accident, Coach Meissner was hitting
fly balls to a group of players in right field at distances of
between 200 and 300 feet from his position between second and third
base. Plaintiff Joseph Rothenberg testified that the sun was
directly overhead at the time of the drill. The day before, Mr.
Rothenberg had been conducting a drill where he would hit fly balls
to players one at a time and at a distance of between 80 and 100
feet away. Also, plaintiffs presented evidence that Little Leaguehad prepared a practice schedule for coaches and that Coach
Meissner distributed this schedule to the parents and players. At
the time of the incident, Coach Meissner was conducting a Saturday
practice for which he had reserved the field by contacting a Little
League representative.
The trial court denied defendants' motion for a directed
verdict at the close of plaintiffs' evidence and again at the close
of all evidence. The court held a charge conference to discuss the
verdict form to be submitted to the jury. Defendants did not
object to the proposed instructions.
(See footnote 1)
The jury answered the issues
submitted to them on the verdict form as follows:
1. Was the minor plaintiff, Nicholas
Rothenberg, injured by the negligence of the
coach, Michael Meissner? No
If you answer the first issue “No,” do not answer
the next two issues.
2. Was the coach, Michael Meissner, the agent of
Little League Baseball, Inc.?
3. Was the coach, Michael Meissner, the agent of
Mountaineer Little League?
4. Was the minor plaintiff, Nicholas Rothenberg,
injured by the negligence of Little League
Baseball, Inc.? Yes
5. Was the minor plaintiff, Nicholas Rothenberg,
injured by the negligence of Mountaineer Little
League? No
If you answer issues (1), (4), and (5), “No,” do
not answer the next issue as to damages. If you answer issues (2), (3), (4), and (5) “No,”
do not answer the next issue as to damages.
6. What amount of damages are the Plaintiffs
entitled to recover?
a. For medical expenses $15,000.
b. For pain and suffering $5,000.
Defendants moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but the
court denied the motion and entered a judgment against defendants
in the amount of $20,000.00 plus costs. From this judgment entered
29 December 2003, defendants appeal.
Defendants assign error to the trial court's denial of their
motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict presents the question of
whether the evidence was sufficient for submission to the jury.
Hunt v. Montgomery Ward and Co., 49 N.C. App. 642, 644, 272 S.E.2d
357, 359 (1980). The trial court must consider the evidence in the
light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and all
conflicts in the evidence are resolved in favor of the opponent.
Morrison v. Kiwanis Club, 52 N.C. App. 454, 462, 279 S.E.2d 96, 101
(citing Potts v. Burnette, 301 N.C. 663, 273 S.E.2d 285 (1981)),
disc. review denied, 304 N.C. 196, 285 S.E.2d 100 (1981).
At the outset, we note that the jury found that Coach Meissner
was not negligent in conducting the drill that caused the minor
plaintiff's injuries. Therefore, defendants are not liable on the
theory of respondeat superior, and we review the question of
whether the evidence was sufficient for submission to the jury
solely on the theory of Little League's own negligence. Defendants
argue that plaintiffs did not present evidence of proximate causeconnecting Little League to the minor plaintiff's injuries. We
agree. Proximate cause is defined as:
a cause which in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any new and independent
cause, produced the plaintiff's injuries, and
without which the injuries would not have
occurred, and one from which a person of
ordinary prudence could have reasonably
foreseen that such a result, or consequences
of a generally injurious nature, was probable
under all the facts as they existed.
Lynn v. Overbrook Development, 328 N.C. 689, 696, 403 S.E.2d 469,
473 (1991) (citations omitted).
At trial, plaintiffs introduced several exhibits in support of
their claim alleging that Little League's own negligence in failing
to provide coaching manuals caused the minor plaintiff's injuries.
Plaintiffs' exhibit 8 contained excerpts from a publication titled
“Leadership Training for Little League Managers and Coaches.” This
publication states on page 47 that a coach should throw fly balls
to outfielders from a short distance away and on page 73 that
players should not be expected to perform a skill until that skill
has been given appropriate teaching and practice time. Plaintiffs'
exhibit 9, an excerpt from the “Instruction Manual for Managers and
Coaches of Players 9 to 12 Years,” provides a pictorial example of
a fly ball drill in which the coach throws the ball to each player,
one player at a time.
Plaintiffs assert that proximate cause was a question for the
jury because their evidence showed that “[h]ad the Coach been
provided with [these safety publications], he would have known the
proper and safe way to conduct the drill.” However, plaintiffsoffered no testimony that had Coach Meissner received these
manuals, he would have read each section pertinent to practice
drills prior to conducting each drill. Moreover, plaintiffs'
evidence fails to establish that a coach would be required, or even
expected, to comply with the drills outlined in Little League
coaching manuals. Thus, plaintiffs' evidence fails to show that
the minor plaintiff's injuries would not have occurred if Little
League had distributed several of its safety publications to
individual coaches. See Morrison, 52 N.C. App. at 463, 279 S.E.2d
at 102 (judgment notwithstanding the verdict was proper on issue of
proximate cause where no evidence that accident would not have
occurred if defendant Kiwanis Club had followed the customary
standards for operating camps for handicapped children).
Therefore, even assuming that Little League was negligent in
failing to distribute coaching safety manuals, the evidence in the
record simply does not show that any negligence by Little League
was the proximate cause of the minor plaintiff being hit by a ball
during an outfield drill.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in denying
defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on
plaintiffs' claim that Little League was liable under a direct
negligence theory. As the jury returned a verdict in favor of
plaintiffs on this theory of liability alone, we must reverse the
judgment in favor of plaintiffs.
Reversed.
Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge McCULLOUGH concur.
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***