Negligent Coach and Legal Issue - Assignment Example

Negligent Coach Name Course Lecture Date Facts At 19, James is a rising hockey Star with a bright future ahead. He is called up to play for a representative team. At the representative team he is under the direction of his coach, team doctor, and the Physio. James finds that the team has a friendly attitude. James signs a contract where he agrees to take a special diet including Vitamins and Supplements. He does not enquire further from the team doctor about the contents of supplements he will be receiving. Following a match, James undergoes a drug test. James is not worried about the results of the test as he is a clean Athlete. James has never taken any steroid in his life, he has even steered away from recreational drug use at school Surprisingly his test results return positive for a prohibited substance. James claims he was not aware he was taking a banned substance and claims it was given to him by the team doctor and Coach. The Coach and the Team Doctors assert that they are not guilty as James consented to taking the banned substance voluntarily. At 19, James Career as a hockey Player is over before it has began. Legal Issue From an analysis of the facts a question of whether the coach and team doctor acted negligently by including banned steroids in the young athletes diets arises. Further, a question of whether James voluntarily assented to taking the banned substance and thus waives any claims of negligence against the coach and the team doctors also arises. The Law According to Lunney and Oliphant, negligence is defined as failure to observe a legal duty to prevent ones actions from causing unintended harm on others1. In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781, negligence was defined as “the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do”2. There are three elements that defendant must prove in court for allegations of negligence to succeed in court3. These elements are: a) The defendant owed the Plaintiff a duty of care. b) The defendant breached his duty of care to the Plaintiff. c) The defendant breach caused the defendant some. Duty of Care The modern test for whether a duty of care exists between a plaintiff and a defendant on the matter before court was established in the case of Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 5624. The test for duty of care as per Grant v The Australian Knitting Mills (1936) A.C. 562 is based on whether the defendant could have reasonably foreseen his actions would cause harm to the plaintiff, and whether there was a relationship of vulnerability between the two parties5. Vulnerability is determined by the presence of the following features6: a) If the defendant was in a controlling position. b) If the plaintiff was reliant on the defendant. c) Whether the Defendant was in a position to protect the plaintiff from the harm or loss that occurred. Proof of Breach In Scott v London & St Katherine's Docks (1865) 3 H & C it was held that the plaintiff must produce evidence that shows the defendant failed to act within the standard of care that would have protected the plaintiff from harm7. Proof that Breach caused damage to the Defendant The plaintiff must link the damage he suffered to the defendant’s breach of his duty of care. The “But for’ espoused in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968] 1 All ER 1068 is used to establish that the defendants action is the cause of the defendant’s damage8. In some cases, the cause of the defendant’s damage may be multiple factors. As seen in Wilsher v Essex AHA (1988), where the defendant damage is caused by multiple factors, the plaintiff must prove the defendants breach is among the contributing factors9. In The Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388 the Privy Council held that liability in negligence could only arise where the harm to the defendant could have been reasonably foreseeable10. Application James has to first prove that the coach and the team doctor owed him a duty of care as regard use of banned substances. From the facts, it can be gathered that both the coach and the team doctor knew the supplements that James was taking contained Steroids. Under the reasonable foreseability test espoused in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1933) a person owes another a duty of care if they could reasonably foresee that their action might cause harm to the defendant. Both the coach and the team doctor knew that if James tested positive to a banned substance his career was over. To satisfy the court that a duty of care existed, James has to show that he was vulnerable in his relationship with the coach and team doctor. James’ vulnerability is revealed by the fact that he regarded the Coach’s and team doctor’s instructions and advice highly. It can be concluded that the team doctor and coach were in a controlling position as regard the Athlete’s diet. James believed by unquestioningly following the coach and team doctor instructions he would succeed in his career as a hockey player. Furthermore, it is known that most young athletes follow the instructions of their coaches without question to retain their places within the team. Secondly, James was reliant on the instructions of his coach and team doctor when it came to matters of diet. Thirdly, it is not in doubt that both the coach and the team doctor were in position to protect the young athlete from testing positive for banned substances. As sporting professional, both the coach and the team doctor were aware about the banned substances James was not supposed to take. Furthermore, at his young age it is most probable that James knew very little about banned substances. Thus, it can be inferred that a relationship of vulnerability existed between the young athlete on one part and the coach on the team doctor on the other. All the features needed to establish duty of care are thus satisfied. Proof of Breach Both the Coach and the team doctor admit that the supplements they were offering to the young athlete contain banned substances. According to the two, James had voluntarily agreed to take the supplements containing the banned substance. Thus, James would find it easy to prove that the coach and the team doctor breached their duty of care towards him. The coach and team doctor failed to ensure that the athlete’s career was protected from accusation of using banned substances. Proof that Breach caused damage to the Defendant Using the “but for” test espoused in espoused in Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital (1968), James can easily prove that the Coach’s and Doctor’s negligence brought about the premature end to his hockey career. Cause in fact is established by an affirmative answer to the question; “but for the coach’s and team doctor’s negligent action James would have tested negative for the banned substance”. As seen by James maintainace of a clean image there is no other contributory factor that would result in him testing positive for a banned substance. Furthermore, James ban from competitive hockey was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the coach’s and team doctor’s action of including banned substances in his supplements. Therefore, the final element of negligent is satisfied. However, as seen in the case, the team doctor and the coach can invoke the volenti non fit injuria defence, and maintain that James agreed to voluntarily assume the risk taking the banned substance11. Volenti non fit injuria defence The claim that James voluntarily agreed to take the banned substances and thus agreed to shoulder the legal burden of the risk cannot stand in court. As illustrated in by Scott LJ in Bowater v Rowley Regis Corp [1944] KB 476 a person can only be taken to have voluntarily assumed risk of injury if he/she in position to choose freely12. In the case, it was ruled that a person must be fully aware of the consequences of the choice he is taking. When James agreed to take the special diet and the supplements he was not aware that they contained any banned substances. As deduced from the facts, James only voluntarily agreed to take a special diet and supplements but not banned substances. Before, the positive test James had kept away from steroids and had never taken any recreational drugs in his life. It is obvious that James would not have agreed to take the supplements if he knew they contained banned substances. Even at his young age it is obvious that James knew the serious consequence to an athlete’s career of engaging in substance abuse. Conclusion If James files for a negligence claim against the coach and the team doctor he is very likely to succeed. James can easily prove that the coach and team doctor owed him a duty of care, which they breached by including a banned substance in his diet without his knowledge. The consequent positive test for a banned substance meant James career ended prematurely. The volenti non fit injuria defence would fail as James had not freely chosen to take the banned substance. Bibliography A. Articles/Books/Reports Lunney, Mark, and Ken Oliphant, Tort law: text and materials (Oxford University Press, 2008). Sappideen, Vines, Grant & Watson, Torts: Commentary and Materials (Lawbook Co, 10th ed, 2009). B. Cases Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968] 1 All ER 1068 Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Company (1856) 11 Ex Ch 781 Bowater v Rowley Regis Corp [1944] KB 476 Grant v The Australian Knitting Mills ([1936] A.C. 562) Scott v London & St Katherine's Docks (1865) 3 H & C Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562. The Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388 Willsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 AC 1074 Read More