Preview:

America n Powe rlifting Associa tion et al. v. Co tillo, No. 6, September Term, 2007 HEAD NOTE : TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK - Where a voluntary participant in a sports activity suffers an injury that is a foreseeable risk of participation, in that activity, his claim is barred by assumption of the risk. Any factual dispute as to the petitioners ' negligenc e in failing to p revent injury to th e respond ent is irrelevant with respect to the issue of respondent's assumption of the risk. The petitioners' m ere neglige nce, witho ut any indication of reckless or intentiona l conduct, will not support a claim of enhanced risk suff icient to negate the responde nt-plaintiff's assumption of the risk of his own injuries.

In the Cir cuit C ourt for C alve rt Co unty No. 04-00050

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 6 September Term, 2007 ____________________________________ AMERICAN POWERLIFTING ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. CHRISTOPHER COTILLO ___________________________________ Bell, C.J. Raker Harrell Battaglia Greene Wilner, A lan M. (R etired, Spec ially Assigned) Cathell, D ale R. (Retire d, Specially Assigned), JJ. ____________________________________ Opinion by Greene, J. ____________________________________ Filed: October 16, 2007

This matter arises f rom a civil ac tion filed in the Circuit Court for Calvert County by the respondent, Christopher Cotillo, against the petitioners, collectively, William Duncan, the American Powerlifting Association ("the APA"), and the Board of Ed ucation of Calvert County ("the Board"), for injuries M r. Cotillo sustained while participating in a powerlifting competition. Mr. Cotillo asserted various negligence claims, and both sides filed moti ons for summary judgment. The Circuit Court granted the petitioners' m otions for summ ary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Cotillo assumed the risk of his injuries. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court in part and revers ed in part, holding tha t summar y judgment w as proper a s to all claims exc ept the claim that the spotters were negligently trained. The petitioners ask this Court to decide whether the Circuit C ourt erred in finding that Mr. Cotillo's claim, that the spotters were negligently instructed, was barred by assumption of the risk, in light of the trial court's additional determination that Mr. Cotillo assumed the risk of injury during a lift, and that Mr. Cotillo assumed the risk that the spotters wo uld fail to prote ct him in the eve nt of a f ailed lift. We shall hold that there is no genuine issue of material fact that Mr. Cotillo assumed the usual and foreseeable risks of the sport when he voluntarily entered a powerlifting competition, and therefore summary judgme nt was appropriate. Th ere is no genu ine dispute that the immediate cause of the respondent's injury was his attempt to qualify by bench pressing 530 pou nds. As a re sult, whether any of the petitioners were negligent in failing to prevent the respondent's injury is of no con sequenc e. Furtherm ore, any dispute of fact as to

whether the spotters were negligent is immaterial because their mere negligence is insufficient to support a finding of enhanced risk. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On Novem ber 8, 2003 , Mr. Cotillo , a powerli fter with ten years of experience, was injured during the 2003 Southern Maryland Open Bench Press & Deadlift Meet ("the M eet"), when he attempted to lift 530 pounds. The Meet was sanctioned by the APA, and held at Patuxent High School, which operates under the jurisdiction of the Board. It was organized by Mr. Duncan, the faculty sponsor of Patuxent High School's weightlifting club, and Sco tt Taylor, APA president. Before the Meet, the lifters were info rmed that th ey could use their own spotters.1 Mr. Cotillo did not exercise this option,2 electing instead to use the spotters provided by the organizers of the M eet. Mr. Duncan recruited Chris Smith and Chris Blair, Patuxent High School students, to ac t as spotters du ring the M eet. At the tim e of the M eet, Mr. Smith was fifteen years old, approximately five feet and eight to ten inches tall, and 180 pou nds. Mr. Blair, at the time of the Meet, was fourteen years old, approximately six feet tall, and

Spotters are present during weightlifting com petitions, just as th ey often are in practice, to assist a partic ipant in the even t of a failed lif t. Generally, one spotter is positioned on each end of the lift bar, and each spotter keeps his hands within inches of the bar so that, if the participant is having difficulty with the bar or is in danger of dropping the bar, the spotters can act quickly to take the bar from the participant. If a spotter touches the bar for any reason, that lift is disqualified. Membe rs of Mr. Cotillo's gym participated in the Meet and were available, on his request, to serve as spotters for his lifts. Such a practice is not uncommon at meets. -22

1

weighed 260 pounds. Both spotters had some weightlifting experience. On the mornin g of the M eet, Mr. D uncan sp oke with the spotters an d told them that, while they sho uld keep th eir hands clo se to the bar, th ey could not to uch the ba r because it would disqualify the lift. Mr. Taylor further instructed the spotters that if th e lifter were to hesitate, without making any downward motion with the bar, they should wait for the referee's instruction to grab the bar. If the lifter were to hesitate and the bar were to come down, Mr. Taylor in structed the sp otters that they sho uld not w ait for the referee's instruction, but instead grab the bar. During the Meet, Mr. Cotillo wore a "Karin's Xtreme Power" double denim bench shirt, which allowed him to lift approximately 150 pounds more than he could have without the shirt. The spotters were positioned on either side of the bar, and Mr. Duncan was positioned in the middle. Mr. Cotillo's first two lifts in the Meet, using the spotters, were uneventf ul. On his third lift, Mr. Cotillo was attempting to lift 530 p ounds. M r. Cotillo brought the bar down without any trouble. A s he b egan to lif t it, he had som e dif ficu lty, 3 at which point Mr. Blair testified th at he bega n to move his own hands closer to the bar. The judge instructed the spotters to grab the bar, but as the spotters closed in, the bar came down, striking Mr. Cotillo in the jaw. The entirety of these ev ents happened w ithin a matter of seconds. As a result of the incident, Mr. Cotillo suffered a shattered jaw, a laceration, and

During Mr. Cotillo's third lift, Mr. Duncan he ard Mr. Cotillo's shirt tear. Mr. C otillo stated that he did not know that his "Karin's Xtreme Power" double denim bench shirt had ripped un til after his failed lift attempt. -3-

3

dama ge to se veral tee th, requ iring trea tment. On January 15, 2004, the respon dent filed a complaint in the C ircuit Court for Calvert Cou nty. In his amended complain t, Mr. Cotillo asserted various claims of negligence against Mr. Duncan, the APA, and the Board.4 Each of the parties filed motions for summary judgment and on February 3, 2006, the cou rt denied the respondent's motion and granted the petition ers' mo tions, on the gro unds th at Mr. C otillo ass umed the risk o f his inju ries. Mr. Cotillo filed an appeal with the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court of Special Appeals held that summary judgment was properly entered on all claims except the negligence claim grounded in allegations of improper preparatory instruction of the spotters. T he interme diate appella te court reasoned that because Mr. Cotillo did not know the spotters were improperly trained,5 and because their improper training presented an enhanced risk not normally incident to the sport, Mr. Cotillo could not have assumed the risk. Cotillo v. Duncan, 172 Md. App. 29, 54, 912 A.2d 72, 86-87 (2006 ).

The APA an d the Board filed a third party complaint against K arins Xtreme Pow er, LLC, the manufacturer of the double denim be nch shirt, alleg ing that the sh irt Mr. Cotillo wore was defective. The third party complaint was subsequently dismissed. The respondent contends that the spotters were told not to touch the bar until they were signaled by the judge. The spotters were also instructed that if they touched the bar during the lift, that lift would be disqualified. The C ourt of Specia l Appeals noted that it was unclear from the record whether the spotters were imp roperly trained, b ut resolved all reasonab le inferences in the respondent's favor for purposes of reviewing the grant of summary judgment. Cotillo v. Duncan, 172 Md. App. 29, 54 n.13, 912 A.2d 72, 87 n.13 (2006). -45

4

The AP A and th e Board f iled petitions fo r writ of certio rari in this Court, which we granted.6 America n Powe rlifting v. Cotillo , 398 M d. 313, 9 20 A.2 d 1058 (2007 ). DISCUSSION I. Parties' Ar gumen ts The petitioners argue that the Cou rt of Special Appe als erred by holding that Mr. Cotillo could not have assumed the risk that the spotters would be negligently trained. They The petitioner APA presented the following question in its petition for writ of certiorari: In light of the holding that Christopher Cotillo ("Cotillo") assumed the risk as a matter of law of being injured by the bar during a lift, assumed the risk as a matter of law tha t the spotters w ould fail to protect h im in the event of a failed lift and assumed the risk as a matter of law that the spotters would be negligently positioned, did the Tria l Court err in finding that Cotillo's c laims for ne gligent instruc tion of the spotters were barred? The petitioner Board presented the following questions in its petition for writ of certiorari: 1. Whether the Court of Special Appea ls' Opinion is inconsisten t with well-established Maryland la w on ass umption o f risk and that doctrine's independence from a defendant's alleged negligence. 2. Whether the Court of Special Appeals failed to consider (a) the video footage of the event; an d (b) the C ircuit Court's determination that no causation exists because reasonable persons could not differ in concluding that the speed at which the 530 lbs. bar came crashing down made prevention of the injuries impossible by human spotters. 3. Whether the Court of Special Appeals' Opinion, from a public policy standpoin t, jeopardizes the existence of sports programs and other extracurricular activities in the State, including those funded and operated by public and independent schools. -56

contend that the doctrine of assumption of the risk operates independently from the law of negligence, and therefore it is irrelevant whether they may have been negligent in training the spotters. The petitioners reason that holding otherwise would create a problem of circular logic, enabling plaintiffs to escape an assumption of the risk defense by claiming that they could n ot have anticipa ted the d efend ants' ne gligenc e. The petitioners furthe r argue that th e Court of Special A ppeals erred by failing to consider the video footage of the event, which the Circuit Court considered and was part of the record submitted to the Court of Special Appeals. The respondent argues that the petitioners were negligent in training the spotters, and that their negligent training presented an enhanced risk to Mr. Cotillo that he could not have assumed. The respondent contends that he could not have assumed the particular risk that the spotters would be n egligently trained because assum ption of the risk requires that M r. Cotillo have particular knowledge of the risks he assumes, and he had no prior knowledge of the tr aining th e spotte rs receiv ed bef ore he e ncoun tered the risk. Further, the responde nt contends that the alleged n egligent training of the spotters enhanced the risk to Mr. Cotillo, and that this increased risk was not a risk inherent in the sport. Because the respondent believes that this increased risk creates a dispute as to whether Mr. Cotillo kno wingly and voluntarily confronted a particular risk, he argues that summary

-6-

judgment was inappropriate.7 Fina lly, the respondent contends that the Court of Special Appeals properly considered the video footage of the incident, and that further in terpretation o f the video is a matter for the trier of fac t. II. Standard of Review We are asked in the case sub judice to review the Circuit C ourt's entry of summary judgment and we do so de novo . Educational Testing Serv. v. Hildebrant, 399 Md. 128, 139, 923 A.2d 34, 40 (2007). In a review of a grant of sum mary judgment, our tw o-part analysis determines first whether there is a genuine dispute of material fact, and then wheth er the m oving p arty is entitle d to jud gmen t as a ma tter of law . Id. Where a dispute regarding a fact can have no impact on the outcome of the case, it is not a dispute of materia l fact su ch that it c an prev ent a gra nt of su mmar y judgm ent. Miller v. Ba y City Property Owners Ass'n, Inc., 393 Md. 620, 631, 903 A.2d 938, 945 (2006). For purposes of reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we construe the facts before this Court in the light mo st favo rable to t he non -movin g party. Todd v. MTA, 373 Md. 149, 155, 816 A.2d 930, 93 3 (200 3).

In his brief, the respondent contends that the Local Government Tort Claims Act, Md. Code (1974, 2006 Repl. Vol.),

Download American Powerlifting v. Cotillo.pdf

Maryland Law