This paper explores the legal liabilities and safety obligations facing managers of high school athletic facilities, particularly school-owned stadiums that host public events. Drawing on legal scholarship and court cases, it examines the concept of the "invitee," the distinction between governmental and proprietary functions under state immunity doctrines, and the three core safety obligations — inspection, warning, and maintenance — owed to spectators and users. The paper also addresses crowd management and crowd control as distinct but interrelated responsibilities, and considers specific risks such as buffer zone violations and inadequate security. Real court cases, including a 2005 Texas appellate decision and Roth v. Costa, ground the discussion in practical legal consequence.
"Facility liability is not predicated on the type of facility. Rather, legal liability is based on the types of clientele who attend or use the facility, and the nature of the activities taking place in the facility." — Bernard P. Maloy (1993)
The recreation and sport world, according to Bernard P. Maloy (1993), Associate Professor, typically caters to two types of client or customer. In the article "Legal Obligations Related to Facilities," Maloy explains that these individuals include the spectator and the user (denoting a participant or a player). The spectator at the facility typically pays an admission fee to attend and observe a particular event. The user may have also paid a membership fee or charge to utilize the facility.
In both scenarios, "the payment of the fee to enter or use the facility legally establishes the spectator or the user as an 'invitee' on the premises. It is also possible, however, for spectators and users to be considered invitees without paying fees" (Maloy, 1993, ¶ 2). For instance, a facility may sponsor an activity aimed at attracting public attendees or users without charging admission. This paper examines a number of legalities relating to the operation of high school athletic facilities (stadiums) for the purpose of hosting high school athletic events in which the public is an "invitee," and explores the legal issues and liabilities school districts that own stadiums consequently assume in this common scenario.
Maloy (1993) also notes that students are typically deemed "invitees" on school grounds during school-sponsored events and/or when school is in session. An example of this is seen in the case Curtis v. State of Ohio (1986), in which "the court found an athlete injured in a facility at Ohio State University to be an invitee to whom certain safety obligations were owed" (Maloy, 1993, ¶ 3). Students attending a high school football game are another example of students being considered invitees.
In Money and Schools, David C. Thompson, Faith E. Crampton, and R. Craig Wood (2008) explain that, in regard to schools, differences in liability exist. This distinction relates to educational activities as opposed to other school-sponsored events not central to the school's educational mission. For instance, athletic events that occur during hours outside of scheduled school sessions, or other voluntary events, may summon a dissimilar liability threshold than class field trips incur. Rulings regarding particular distinctions, nevertheless, are not consistent even when they involve similar circumstances.
One incident involved an "invitee" spectator in Sawaya who was injured after a bleacher railing failed at a game occurring in a stadium where two districts had rented a football stadium from a third district. The Arizona State Supreme Court found the event to be proprietary in nature for the third district owning the stadium and held that district liable. Another case, however, though essentially identical in circumstance, merited an opposite verdict. In Richards, a Michigan court found no liability, holding that the district did not aim to earn any profit from the hosted event, which it reportedly provided only as an educational activity.
According to Thompson, Crampton, and Wood (2008), the controlling component regarding liability for athletic facilities appears to evolve from the way individual states have ruled on immunity. A Michigan court in Ross, for example, ruled: "When a governmental agency engages in mandated or authorized activities, it is immune from tort liability unless the activity is proprietary in nature" (Thompson, Crampton, & Wood, p. 336). In yet another case, a Texas court argued in Stout: "Since a school district is purely a governmental agency . . . it performs no proprietary functions separate from governmental functions" (Ibid.).
Consequently, interpretation of state legislative intent determines liability for proprietary acts. This liability may also be subject to abrogating immunity, as well as to state courts' perception of the government's immunity and liability (Thompson, Crampton, & Wood, 2008).
Athletic facilities regularly encounter risks when hosting high school athletic events for invitees. Participatory risks — one classification for risks they may encounter — are generated by the event or activity itself. "When a spectator enters a stadium, arena, or school gym to watch a sport event, the spectator usually assumes the risk of injury from a natural occurrence of the event itself" (Maloy, 1993, ¶ 8). For the spectator, these risks can include, but are not limited to, baseball foul balls, errant hockey pucks, or golf balls. Athletic facility managers could benefit from recognizing that not all participatory risks or hazards merit the same legal burdens. The following list denotes a number of potential factors — though not an exhaustive enumeration — that could contribute to participatory risks:
In regard to participatory risks as well as facility risks — another category of potential risk factors — athletic facility managers need to ensure they communicate clear and concise messages to spectators regarding warnings or dangers of the athletic facility they visit. "A facility has the obligation to take reasonable precautions to keep spectators and users safe" (Maloy, 1993, ¶ 15). The following three legal obligations directly relate to facility operations:
Athletic facility management must fulfill a safety obligation to regularly inspect the facility's premises. "Premises can include buildings, playing fields, walkways, parking lots, and fences. This obligation is the foundation for all other safety obligations" (Maloy, 1993, ¶ 15). Unless management prudently performs this function, other safety obligations will not likely be effectively accomplished.
In regard to "warning of unknown risks or dangers," athletic facility management must fulfill this distinctive safety obligation for the following three reasons:
Maintaining and/or repairing the athletic facility constitutes a major step management may implement to help decrease the facility's exposure to premises liability. Along with "a duty to maintain or repair the facility," this duty "is independent of the inspection process" and "serves as a proactive obligation to maintain the facility, not merely a reactive obligation to fix defects which have been discovered" (Maloy, 1993, ¶ 23). In the legal sense, spectators and users may assume that management operates the athletic facility according to a comprehensive maintenance plan.
Despite athletic facility management's efforts to regularly inspect the facility, warn invitees of unknown risks or dangers, and maintain and/or repair the facility (Maloy, 1993), dangers may still exist when a school district rents its stadium out for special events. One case filed in the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District, Tyler, Texas, in 2005 reflects this scenario. Court records show that on December 5, 2003, the Fowlers (spectators) attended a high school football playoff game between Gilmer High School and Atlanta High School, two Texas public schools. "During that event, Bridget Fowler slipped and fell, breaking her leg" (In the court…, 2005, p. 1). Approximately two years after that fall, the Fowlers sued the Tyler Independent School District, claiming that hazardous conditions existed at the stadium when the football game was played. The Fowlers further asserted that the facility did not have any warning signs posted on site and that the stadium had not been inspected for dangerous conditions.
In response, Tyler Independent School District filed a plea with the court, claiming that the school district enjoyed sovereign immunity from suit:
Public schools are conducted for the benefit of the entire state . . . And it matters not whether such schools are conducted by the trustees of a common school district or trustees of an independent district. It is not a function undertaken for the private advantage and benefit of the locality and its inhabitants. . . . Education is not of local interest, but is statewide. The state is interested as much in one child's education as another's, and it matters not in what locality it resides. (In the court…, 2005, p. 3)
"Texas appellate case involving stadium slip-and-fall"
"Planning and security obligations for event crowds"
"Physical space management to reduce injury liability"
You’re 58% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.