Sanders's injury was more as a result of the "hard falls" of softball, rather than any sort of "rough treatment" that occurred as a result of improper supervision. The "rough treatment" category of head-butting football players can easily be distinguished from the more passive interaction between sliding ankle and first base. When the facts of a case clearly demonstrate improper supervision of "rough treatment" athletic activity, the courts have had no trouble imposing liability. In Brooks v. Board of Education of City of New York [205 N.Y.S. 2nd 777 (1960)], the court found in favor of the plaintiff who was injured during a game of line soccer due to a physical mismatch between him and his opponent. The court stated that a physical mismatch in a "hazardous" game such as soccer should have been more closely supervised.

The essence of any legitimate legal system is the ability to predict rulings. Generally true to form, there is some stability in the field of coaching negligence that can be identified. First, a general distinction can be made between "run-of-the-mill" sports-related injuries and those resulting from "rough treatment." The type of game being played might be an indication of how great a level of supervision is needed. A run-of-the-mill injury occurring during an otherwise generally rough sport like football might be scrutinized more carefully than even the "shocks and blows" of a less brutal game such as softball. In addition, confrontation between two human beings, as opposed to between student and unsophisticated equipment, might be a key factor to consider in determining whether the supervising agent will be held responsible for any injury that occurred.

Courts must use prudence in juggling the arguments of parties to a negligence claim. Parties that have been wronged deserve compensation, but the court must determine the costs and benefits of a defendant's situation. If a court says a coach/school is responsible for preventing injury type X, a school might have to...

This re-allocation of limited resources might dearly affect the budget of other crucial school services.
For example, in a 2008 Seattle case, a coach was relieved of liability for injuries a student sustained when he pitched in all five of his team's baseball games during a two-week stretch, throwing in total approximately 425 pitches. The decision was rendered in favor of the defendant primarily because the coach did not know enough about the dangers of high pitch counts at the time of the incident. Had the coach been held responsible, the school he worked for, as well as any other school concerned about future litigation, might have had to change who they hire or how many people they hire, with all the attendant financial consequences that then come in to play.

It is perhaps because of such concerns that the courts in recent years have turned towards an emphasis on assumption of risk as a guidepost for analyzing cases of coaching negligence. That is, parents and students are obliged to understand the possible consequences of participation in sports and soberly sign away the right to litigate, even in cases of ordinary negligence. Only in extraordinary cases of "gross" negligence might the parents then be able to logically claim they did not foresee such ineptitude by the supervisory agents when they signed the release form.

Bibliography

Cotten, D., & Wolohan, J. (2003). Law for recreation and sports managers: Fourth edition. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Neish, M. (1996). Tort liability in high school sport. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from Bnet Business Network Web site: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FIH/is_/ai_n18606910

Wyrwich, T. (2008). Jury rules district wasn't negligent in North Mason High School pitcher's lawsuit. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from Seattle Times Web site: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/highschoolsports/2004293408_websuit19.html