For those who are familiar with the world of baseball, it is common knowledge that a pitcher should have a protective L-screen in front of them in order to prevent possible injury. The case of Shawn Bukowski vs. Clarkson University et al. showcases a situation where a pitcher was struck in the face by a line drive during a practice session; this can be attributed to the absence of an L-screen. Shawn Bukowski sued his university and head coach James Kane for damages related to his injury; the results of this case and the reasoning for it is quite interesting. I will discuss the key information regarding this case, the different factors that relate to the outcome, and how the case could have played out differently if the NCAA had better rules
…show more content…
During the winter of his freshman year, Bukowski was informed by his coaches prior to indoor training that he would be practicing on an artificial mound at regulation distance to the batter and catcher (Bukowski v. Clarkson University, 2011). The day before being injured, Bukowski watched pitchers throwing "live" during practice without an L-screen in the indoor facility (Bukowski vs. Clarkson Univ., 2011). Despite never having practiced "live" indoors and without an L-screen, Bukowski entered the cage on March 2, 2006 and was eventually struck by the batter’s hit in the jaw, breaking his tooth (Barber & Murphy, 2012). Prior to becoming aware of all the legal issues surrounding this case, I assumed that Clarkson University and head coach James Kane were fully liable because of their inability to provide Bukowski with an L-screen, however that is not the case. The Appellate Court ruled that Shawn Bukowski assumed the inherent risk of being hit by a line drive (Barber & Murphy, …show more content…
Whether the necessary actions are legally mandated or not, every coach and athletic department should consciously be making sure they are putting their athletes in the best position possible to succeed; that clearly wasn’t the case for Shawn Bukowski. However, the reason I agree with the court’s ruling is because although he may have not signed any papers or blatantly said anything, Shawn Bukowski walked onto the artificial mound knowing that anything can happen. Organizers of sporting activities have a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect individuals "from injuries arising out of unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased risks" (Bukowski vs. Clarkson Univ., 2011) and with all things considered, Clarkson University and James Kane we’re legally doing just that. Additionally, after examining the cases of Siegel v City of New York and Owen v RJS Safety Equip., it became clear to me that the reason the plaintiffs were able to win their case is because their injuries occurred due to circumstances that were not inherent to the
During the winter of his freshman year, Bukowski was informed by his coaches prior to indoor training that he would be practicing on an artificial mound at regulation distance to the batter and catcher (Bukowski v. Clarkson University, 2011). The day before being injured, Bukowski watched pitchers throwing "live" during practice without an L-screen in the indoor facility (Bukowski vs. Clarkson Univ., 2011). Despite never having practiced "live" indoors and without an L-screen, Bukowski entered the cage on March 2, 2006 and was eventually struck by the batter’s hit in the jaw, breaking his tooth (Barber & Murphy, 2012). Prior to becoming aware of all the legal issues surrounding this case, I assumed that Clarkson University and head coach James Kane were fully liable because of their inability to provide Bukowski with an L-screen, however that is not the case. The Appellate Court ruled that Shawn Bukowski assumed the inherent risk of being hit by a line drive (Barber & Murphy, …show more content…
Whether the necessary actions are legally mandated or not, every coach and athletic department should consciously be making sure they are putting their athletes in the best position possible to succeed; that clearly wasn’t the case for Shawn Bukowski. However, the reason I agree with the court’s ruling is because although he may have not signed any papers or blatantly said anything, Shawn Bukowski walked onto the artificial mound knowing that anything can happen. Organizers of sporting activities have a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect individuals "from injuries arising out of unassumed, concealed, or unreasonably increased risks" (Bukowski vs. Clarkson Univ., 2011) and with all things considered, Clarkson University and James Kane we’re legally doing just that. Additionally, after examining the cases of Siegel v City of New York and Owen v RJS Safety Equip., it became clear to me that the reason the plaintiffs were able to win their case is because their injuries occurred due to circumstances that were not inherent to the