Koffman v. Garnett

574 S.E.2d 258 · Supreme Court of Virginia · 2003

Facts

Andrew W. Koffman, a 13-year-old, was a third-string defensive player on his middle school football team in Botetourt County. James Garnett, an assistant coach, was responsible for the defensive players. After a game loss and perceived inadequate tackling, Garnett ordered Andy to hold a football and stand upright and motionless to demonstrate tackling technique. Without warning, Garnett, who weighed 260 pounds, tackled Andy, who weighed 144 pounds, lifting him off his feet and slamming him to the ground. This tackle broke the humerus bone in Andy's left arm. Prior to this incident, no coach had used physical force to instruct players on tackling.

Procedural history

The Koffmans filed a second amended motion for judgment alleging gross negligence, assault, and battery against Coach Garnett. Garnett filed a demurrer and plea of sovereign immunity. The trial court dismissed the action, ruling that Garnett was entitled to sovereign immunity for simple negligence and that the alleged facts were insufficient to state claims for gross negligence, assault, or battery. The Koffmans appealed the dismissal of the gross negligence, assault, and battery claims to this Court.

Issue

Did the trial court properly dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for gross negligence, assault, and battery, finding the alleged facts insufficient to state causes of action?

Holding

The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the gross negligence and battery claims, finding the alleged facts sufficient to state causes of action. The court affirmed the dismissal of the assault claim, finding the alleged facts insufficient.

Rule

Gross negligence is defined as an utter disregard of prudence amounting to a complete neglect of another's safety, shocking to fair-minded people, and is generally a factual matter for a jury unless reasonable people cannot differ. Assault requires an act intended to cause harmful contact or apprehension, creating a reasonable apprehension of imminent battery. Battery is an unwanted touching that is neither consented to, excused, nor justified. Consent to play football does not automatically imply consent to an aggressive tackle by an adult coach without warning, especially when prior practice did not involve such force.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.