Due Process Claim Shot Down in Football Death; ‘Confined to Torts’

[WSJ Law Blog]

Former Minnesota Vikings offensive lineman Korey Stringer during practice, July 31, 2001. He died the next day due to complications from heat stroke. (AP)

Last week, LB readers expressed a wide range of opinion on whether a high school football coach in Kentucky should’ve been charged criminally for the heat-related death of his 15 year-old player.

On Friday, a day after the indictment of the Kentucky coach, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decided a similar case, holding that three high school football coaches in Georgia were entitled to qualified immunity in a §1983 substantive due process claim brought by the parents of Tyler Davis, who died the morning after a practice session.

From the opinion:

In their complaint, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs allege the coaches . . . failed to provide enough water to keep Davis hydrated, ignored signs and Davis?s complaints that he was becoming dehydrated, subjected Davis to rigorous conditioning drills at the end of a two-hour practice, and failed to attend to Davis until after a team meeting, even though he had collapsed in the middle of the drills. . . . Although the workout was admittedly voluntary, Plaintiffs allege that if a student did not perform all the exercises and activities in the workout, he would be subject to further discipline from the coaches, such as additional drills, exclusion from tryouts, or demotion to the junior varsity team.

After running through several graphic examples of student injuries, the court holds that, since Davis voluntarily participated in the practice, no custodial relationship existed between himself and the school. “In this school setting case,” the court continues, “the complaint’s allegations of deliberate indifference, without more, do not rise to the conscience-shocking level required for a constitutional violation. While the circumstances of this case are truly unfortunate, Plaintiffs’ claims are properly confined to the realm of torts.”

LB Readers: Even though this case concerns the constitutional question of substantive due process, while the Kentucky case gets at the issue of criminal negligence, both cases raise questions of degree: How far can a coach push a player before he can be held liable for that player’s death? The answer, at least here, seems to be “pretty far.” What say you?

What may be worth mentioning about the 11th Circuit’s opinion is that it was decided without the benefit of (1) a brief being filed by or on behalf of the family, and (2) any counsel appearing for the family at oral argument. Note that this was an appeal by the coaches from an order denying their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity so the family had at least survived that challenge at the District Court level. Why trial counsel for the family didn’t participate in the appeal is unknown. While the Court of Appeals clearly gave serious consideration to arguments that would support the District Court’s dismissal order, nevertheless the failure of the family to defend the order must have been meaningful, too.