More Isn't Better: Overtraining as a Cause of Action for Coach Negligence

• Author: Rhiannon Herbert
• Pages: 126-155

MORE ISN’T BETTER: OVERTRAINING AS A CAUSE OF

ACTION FOR COACH NEGLIGENCE

RHIANNON HERBERT*

I. INTRODUCTION

During the 2016–17 school year, nearly eight-million high school

students participated in interscholastic sports.

1

Playing a sport has

numerous benefits for athletes, including the development of lifelong

physical activity skills and self-confidence.

2

While sports are not in and of

themselves educational,

3

they support educational goals by giving student-

athletes an opportunity to maximize their physical and psychological

development and create a “game plan” for life.

4

The coach is the most important individual in determining whether a

sport will have an advantageous or disadvantageous impact on the athlete.

5

The coach holds the key to all that is positive or negative in the athletic

experience, and the impact coaches have on athletes’ lives will last long

after the athlete’s involvement in the sport ends.

6

Copyright © 2019, Rhiannon Herbert.

* A good coach can make a permanent impact on a child’s life. Unfort unately, so can a

bad coach. It is with this notion in mind that I chose to write this Comment exploring

negligence liability for overtraining. As a life-long competitive swimmer, I’ve had many

coaches who have made a positive impact on my life. I’d like to thank each one of them for

the lessons they’ve taught me about life outside the pool. I would also like to thank

Professor Susan Gilles, as this Comment would not have been possible without her

guidance. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for a lifetime of support in my athletic

endeavors; my mother, for driving me all over the state to sit through painfully long meets,

and my father, whose first question when I got home from a meet was always “Did you

have fun?” rather than “Did you win?” Thank you both for helping to mold me into the

person I am today.

1

See NAT’L FED’N OF ST. HIGH SCH. ASS’NS, 2016–17 HIGH SCH. ATHLETICS

PARTICIPATION SURV. 53, 55, http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatistics/PDF/2016-17_

Participation_Survey_Results.pdf [https://perma.cc/44KH-Y637] (showing the exact tally

of athlete participants as 7,963,535 athletes for the 2016–17 school year).

2

See Joel S. Brenner, Sports Specialization and Intensive Training in Young Athletes,

PEDIATRICS, Sept. 2018, at 2, ht tp://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2016/08/25/

peds.2016-2148 [https://perma.cc/C5KY-YNUL].

3

See NAT’L FED’N OF ST. HIGH SCH. ASS’NS., Unit 1 Course Welcome, Ch. 1 (2:25), in

FUNDAMENTALS OF COACHING (May 2017).

4

See NAT’L FED’N OF ST. HIGH SCH. ASS’NS., Unit 1 History, Mission, and Purpose of

Interscholastic Athletics, Ch. 8 (2:16), in FUNDAMENTALS OF COACHING (May 2017).

5

See NAT’L FED’N OF ST. HIGH SCH. ASS’NS., Unit 1 The Role of the Teacher/Coach,

Ch. 1, in FUNDAMENTALS OF COACHING (May 2017).

6

Id.

126 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [47:125

Unfortunately, some coaches do not always live up to the strict

behavioral standards set for them.

7

A coach owes a general duty of

reasonable care to his or her athletes in the conduct of the sports program.

8

If he or she breaches this duty of reasonable care, a cause of action for

negligence arises.

9

This comment is split into three main sections. The first section will

explore the history of the interscholastic coach’s duty of reasonable care,

and how courts have construed numerous artificially created sub-categories

of this duty to determine that coaches owe a general duty to properly train

their athletes.

10

The second section proposes that the grossly negligent, reckless, or

intentional failure to properly condition athletes by overtraining triggers a

cause of action for coach negligence.

11

The harmful physical and

emotional effects of overtraining on athletes will be studied, and the best

ways to ensure coaches are equipped with the necessary knowledge and

training to avoid violating this sub-category of the duty of proper training

will be evaluated. This section will also discuss why the implementation

of this duty is neither too loosely defined nor too vague.

The third and final section will discuss the scope of actionable conduct

for a coach’s failure to properly condition athletes by overtraining.

12

This

section will explain why the affirmative defenses available to coaches limit

this cause of action to grossly negligent, reckless, and intentional acts. It

will also offer examples of conduct that triggers this cause of action and

the warning signs thereof.

II. HISTORY OF THE INTERSCHOLASTIC COACH’S DUTY TO PROPERLY

TRAIN ATHLETES

Everyone owes a duty to act with reasonable care to avoid injuring

others.

13

The standard for whether someone acts with “reasonable care” is

7

See NAT’L FED’N OF ST. HIGH SCH. ASS’NS., Unit 1 Coaching Philosophy, Ch. 10

(0:07), in FUNDAMENTALS OF COACHING (May 2017).

8

See Swank v. Valley Christian Sch., 398 P.3d 1108, 1118 (Wash. 2017). See also

DAN B. DOBBS ET AL., HORNBOOK ON TORTS 213 (2d ed. 2016).

9

See Morris v. Wa l-Mart Stor es E., LP, No. 3–10–1045, 2012 WL 1341075, at *2

(M.D. Tenn. Apr. 18, 2012).

10

See infra Section II.

11

See infra Section III.

12

See infra Section IV.

13

DOBBS ET AL., supra note 8, at 213. The four main elements of a negligence action

are: (1) injury; (2) duty; (3) breach; and (4) causation. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Camp,

831 P.2d 586, 588–89 (Mont. 1992) (citing Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 689 F.2d 72, 78 (6th Cir.

(continued)