Onyshko v. NCAA: Duty to Warn and Protect Student Athletes

Case Overview

Onyshko v. NCAA is a case pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Heightened public attention to the dangers of college sports — specifically football — has raised the question of the degree to which colleges and the NCAA bear a responsibility both to warn and to protect players at participating institutions. The case concerns precisely such allegations. The plaintiff contends that the NCAA was negligent in its duty to protect him as a student athlete from the risks of traumatic brain injury (TBI), dementia, and other complications associated with repeated head trauma in football. He further contends that the NCAA failed to exercise due diligence in informing coaches how to mitigate the risk of blows to the head, and in creating rules that would decrease the likelihood that athletes like himself would sustain blows with negative long-term consequences.

Duty to Protect Student Athletes

In this case, there is a clear duty on the part of the NCAA and member schools to protect the health and well-being of student athletes. It is important to note that this is not merely a case of an individual pursuing a risky sport during his own leisure time, as a marathon runner might enter an extreme race. Athletes are supposed to benefit from their relationship with the school. Moreover, Article 2.2 of the NCAA Constitution specifically addresses the "Principle of Student-Athlete Well-Being" by stating that "intercollegiate athletics programs shall be conducted in a manner designed to protect and enhance the physical and educational well-being of student-athletes."¹ Additionally, according to Section 2.3.3, Health and Safety, "it is the responsibility of each member institution to protect the health of, and provide a safe environment for, each of its participating student-athletes."²

Schools act in loco parentis for student athletes, and students are not treated as fully independent adults within the university environment. The university takes many measures to shape student activities and ensure that they are less risky, and it bears a similar obligation with respect to student athletics. Even if doing so means changing the rules of football to reduce head contact — changes that might diminish football as a spectator sport — the welfare of the athletes must come first. Furthermore, since these are student athletes, their classroom performance may be affected by injuries sustained in football. It is a mockery of the concept of student athletics to allow students to suffer potentially incapacitating blows to the head without making any effort to mitigate the risk.

It is alleged that "during the time period of the events in this action, the NCAA failed to address and/or correct the coaching of tackling or playing methodologies that cause head injuries; the NCAA failed to educate coaches, trainers and student-athletes as to the symptoms indicating possible concussions; the NCAA failed to implement system-wide 'return to play' guidelines for student-athletes who have sustained concussions; and the NCAA failed to implement system-wide guidelines for the screening and detection of head injuries."³ At a fundamental level, the NCAA has a responsibility to enhance player safety to the maximum degree that current knowledge and technology allow. Yet it neglected to equip relevant personnel with the tools needed to screen for concussions to the fullest extent that modern medical science permits. Players are poorly positioned to determine whether the plays they are executing or the injuries they sustain put them at long-term risk, and they must trust in the expertise of the medical staff and coaches.

Initial Versus Long-Term Risk

The concept of long-term risk is central to this case, because it is not sufficient that individuals participating in an activity are merely aware of the immediate risk. This point directly addresses the argument that football is a risky sport and therefore football players "know the risks." In fact, they often do not. Players may understand that they can hurt a knee or a shoulder while playing, or that football carries the risk of acute injury. They are often unaware, however, of the long-term, sustained brain damage that can result from prolonged play. Even a player who does not suffer a life-threatening injury on the field remains at risk for long-term consequences such as dementia.

Young players do not possess the knowledge or even the inherent cognitive ability to understand that risky behavior now may result in serious harm later in life. Young people do not fully assess risk — which is one reason why certain privileges, such as the consumption of alcohol, are restricted to those aged twenty-one and older. It is therefore significant that the NCAA was negligent when it "failed to inform him [Onyshko] of the true risks associated with concussions and sub-concussive hits suffered while playing collegiate football."⁴ The contention that players' awareness of "some risk" is sufficient does not account for the severity, duration, or pervasiveness of the long-term risks associated with repeated head trauma.

Conclusion

For all of these reasons, the NCAA is established as bearing a clear duty to protect and warn Mr. Onyshko of the risks he could sustain playing college football, as well as a duty to mitigate those risks — a duty grounded in the NCAA's own longstanding knowledge of the connection between repeated head trauma and serious long-term neurological harm.

Works Cited

Defendant NCAA's Objections. Onyshko v. NCAA. In the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Print.

Eddy, C. Onyshko v. NCAA. In the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Report and Recommendation. Print.

Onyshko v. NCAA. In the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Print.