SOWERS v. CLINTON CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT

IN RE: SOWERS V. CLINTON CENTRAL SCHOOL CORPORATION

ISSUE:

Did Clinton Central School Corporation exercise proper care in handling the dehydration of respondent’s son, or did they neglect to take measures that would have kept the child alive?

HOLDING

The court ruled that the school district did exercise proper care that they took appropriate actions to try to head off what eventually happened. It ruled, also, that the motion for summary judgment was properly denied.

ANALYSIS

The facts we are given seem to concur with the outcome reached by the court. There had been some issues of heat-related health problems the day before the death of the plaintiff’s son. Given this, and the heat wave still being in effect, the coaching staff changed the practice regimen, making it less stressful, and allowing for more frequent water breaks so that the players could continue to hydrate themselves. Furthermore, they continued the policy of “no contact”, made water breaks more frequent, and kept a close eye on all the players in an attempt to head off any dehydration. They particularly, for this case, checked in with Travis repeatedly throughout the practice. Each time, Travis asserted that he was okay. Whenever there was a question, one of the staff intervened.

Plaintiff, and their son, voluntarily signed the waivers required for participation in the football training camp. Both Travis and his parents were aware of the risks of participating in the football training. (Travis had prepared for this by working on the farm and engaging in strenuous activity before the training camp began.)

Perhaps an argument might have been made that Travis, being a minor, lacked the capacity to fully understand symptoms that would lead to his death, but plaintiff didn’t raise this as a claim to support their claim of negligence and less than the standard of care for their son. Though the staff kept after Travis about hydration, it might have been the case that Travis was unfamiliar with just what dehydration would do to his body. Perhaps he was more interested in being with his peers, with his team, than paying attention to his basic physical needs.

CONCLUSION

It would appear that plaintiff missed a chance to raise some important claims that might have led to a different result. If, instead of relying on negligence, they raised the issue of the youth and lack of awareness of their son. —His inability to realize the potential harm—they might have prevailed. It’s hard to say.