Clark v. University of Oregon

Unless the parties invoke a status, a relationship, or a particular standard of conduct that creates, defines, or limits the defendant’s duty, the issue of liability for harm actually resulting from defendant’s conduct properly depends on whether that conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk to a protected interest of the kind of harm that befell the plaintiff. Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 17, 734 P2d 1326 (1987).

Clark filed a negligence claim against the University after basketball program employees directed him to complete a drill violating NCAA regulations with knowledge of his previous knee injuries, resulting in his torn ACL. Clark assigned error to the trial court’s grant of summary judgment against him. The University argues that when injuries occur in a sporting activity, a defendant has no duty to protect against risks that are an element of that sport. Clark argues he only assumed the risks necessary to basketball and known to him, which did not encompass those he sustained. Unless the parties invoke a status, a relationship, or a particular standard of conduct that creates, defines, or limits the defendant’s duty, the issue of liability for harm actually resulting from defendant’s conduct properly depends on whether that conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk to a protected interest of the kind of harm that befell the plaintiff. Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or 1, 17, 734 P2d 1326 (1987). The Court found that because the University’s conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of harm going beyond ordinary participation in basketball, Clark did not assume the risk of his injury. Therefore, it is for the jury to assess the reasonableness of that conduct and the foreseeability of Clark’s risk of harm, making the grant of summary judgment improper. Reversed and remanded.