Unnecessary Roughness: Coaches, Concussions And The Constitution In Mann V. Palmerton Area School District

by Pullman & Comley - School Law

Pullman & Comley - School Law

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit may have coaches checking with their lawyer before deciding whether to allow an injured player to go back into a game or practice. In an alarming decision for public secondary schools, colleges, and universities, the Third Circuit held in Mann v. Palmerton Area School District that “an injured student-athlete participating in a contact sport has a constitutional right to be protected from further harm.”  Consequently, permitting a student-athlete who has suffered a serious injury to continue participating in a practice or game – thereby risking further harm — could violate the United States Constitution, leaving the coach and, by extension, educational entities liable for damages.

The student athlete in Mann was a seventeen-year-old student at Palmerton Area High School, when, on November 1, 2011, he sustained a hard hit to the upper body during football practice.  A number of teammates testified that the plaintiff was dizzy and stumbling around the field after the hit, that they believed he had suffered a concussion, and that they were surprised when the coach told him to continue participating in the practice.  The coach claimed not to have seen the hit, although evidence adduced at the trial-court level seemed to contradict that.  Furthermore, despite denying that he had seen the hit, the coach acknowledged that before sending him back to practice, he had asked the plaintiff whether he was alright.  Approximately twenty plays later, the plaintiff sustained what he told the coach “was the hardest hit he received in playing football.”  As a result of the two violent hits, he suffered a traumatic brain injury.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of the coach on the ground that he had qualified immunity. On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed the coach’s entitlement to qualified immunity, but not before delineating the reasons why, without immunity, a jury could have found him liable for the student’s injuries.  The appellate court also affirmed the trial court’s finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the school district had a custom or policy that had resulted in the student’s injury.  In short, the case was ultimately decided in the defendants’ favor, but not before the Third Circuit set the stage for future liability in similar cases.  It is, therefore, important to consider the bases upon which the Third Circuit essentially created a new constitutional right for students — and a new obligation for public schools.

In Mann, the court held that knowingly exposing a player to the risk of further injury implicated the student’s “constitutional right to bodily integrity under a state-created danger theory of liability.” This theory derives from the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which provides that the government shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”  It consists of four elements:  1) the harm caused by the state actor was both foreseeable and direct; 2) the state actor acted with “a degree of culpability that shocks the conscience”; 3) the relationship between the state and the plaintiff established the plaintiff as a foreseeable victim of the state’s acts; and 4) the state actor affirmatively used his authority in a manner that created a danger to the plaintiff.

In holding that the plaintiffs satisfied the first prong of the state-created danger test, the Third Circuit noted the coach’s testimony that he was trained both to identify the symptoms of a concussion and to err on the side of caution when it came to removing players who were exhibiting concussion-like symptoms. He also admitted that the student’s first hit could have resulted in a “stinger,” a potential concussion symptom.  Nonetheless, the student was returned to practice.  As for the second element, the court noted that in cases which involve “something less urgent than a ‘split-second’ decision but more urgent than an ‘unhurried judgment,’” mere deliberate indifference can constitute “conscience-shocking” behavior, and that the coach’s conduct satisfied that standard.

Regarding the third prong’s requirement that there be a relationship between the state actor and the victim, the court held that “a student-athlete stands in such a relationship with the coaching staff.” Finally, the court held that if the coach were aware of the initial blow and observed possible concussion symptoms, the use of his authority to return the student to practice rendered the student more vulnerable to harm.  In summary, the court held that a state actor – in this case a high school football coach – violates a student’s constitutional right to be protected from further harm when the injured student-athlete is required to be exposed to a risk of harm by continuing to practice or compete.”

As noted, though, the Third Circuit provided the coach with a respite by holding that he had qualified immunity from suit. Qualified immunity is applied when the contours of a legal right are not sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that his actions violated that right.  At the time of the student’s injury, there were no appellate cases that had established the constitutional right that Mann was in the process of creating.  Consequently, “it was no so plainly obvious that requiring a student-athlete, fully clothed in protective gear, to continue to participate in practice after sustaining a violent hit and exhibiting concussion symptoms implicated the student athlete’s constitutional rights.”

What Does It Mean?

With its decision in Mann, the Third Circuit has put public school districts, as well as public colleges and universities, on notice that when a student-athlete has suffered a serious injury in a contact sport, the days of “put me back in the game, coach” are over.  The coach in Mann was given a pass due to the absence of any legal authority that would have been deemed even constructive notice that his actions were unconstitutional.  Now that in Mann the Third Circuit has created the precedent that previously was lacking, other coaches will not be so lucky.  Consequently, coaches must exercise great caution when dealing with injured students, not only for the athletes’ well-being, but for their own benefit as well.

Furthermore, coaches are at greater risk for liability than the educational entities, as the entities would only be liable for the coaches’ constitutional torts if they had established a custom or policy of permitting injured athletes to be placed back into harm’s way. Nonetheless, public schools should ensure that they both have and enforce policies with respect to the use of injured student-athletes in contact sport games and practices.  In states such as Connecticut, which have established concussion protocols for their public schools, it is imperative that school districts – and their coaches – comply with them.  The failure to do so could serve as a basis for a claim that the schools had established such a custom – even through deliberate indifference — leaving themselves open to liability.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pullman & Comley - School Law | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pullman & Comley - School Law

Pullman & Comley - School Law on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.