Homev. North Kitsap School District
Homev. North Kitsap School District
KurtHome, who was a tutor at a junior high school and a vice footballcoach at the Central Kitsap School District, injured his leg and hip.He encountered the accident while attempting to save a footballer,who was also a student at the school, from hitting a concrete curb(Home v. north Kitsap School District, 1998). The structure wasraised several inches on the playing ground and followed the track’sinner edge that surrounded the field. Though the match took place atthe Kitsap Junior High School’s football pitch, it was managed andcontrolled by the North Kitsap School District. Before the match, thehead coach and the plaintiff had held some discussions regarding thepotential hazards posed by the concrete curb to anyone running out ofbounds. Following a deliberation, the two decided to positionthemselves next to the curb to protect any player who might runtowards it. However, the big question was whether the institutionowed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
Issues:Legal questions before the court
Homeclaimed that the North Kitsap School District were negligent and suedthem. The accused, however, argued that they were insusceptible fromthis suit under the recreational land-use statute RCW 4.24.210.Additionally, they claimed that Mr. Kurt was a licensee and that hecould not substantiate that the institution was neglectful in anyliability owed to him (Home v. north Kitsap School District, 1998).Thirdly, they alleged that the principle of hypothesis of riskdeclared them not responsible.
Holding:Court’s final decision and Rationale and Explanation
Thetrial court concurred with the defendant’s claims and awarded theirdecision for summary judgment. However, the plaintiff appealed. Theappellate began with revisiting the recreation land-use statuteinitially mentioned by the accused (Home v. north Kitsap SchoolDistrict, 1998). It also analyzed some of the arguments from theWidman v. Johnson, Bauer v. Minidoka School, and the McIntosh v.Omaha Public schools as regards to the immune statute. Consequently,it dismissed the immunity cited by the institution. The courtarticulated that the school was not immune since their football fieldwas not open to the public members during the incident.
Whenreviewing the status of the plaintiff as a user of the facility, thejudge held that Mr. Home was a visitor and the institution owed him aresponsibility. It was supposed to be much higher than the one theywould owe to a licensee (Home v. north Kitsap School District, 1998).It stated that the plaintiff was a coach invited to the North Kitsapplaying field to manage a school-facilitated football game. Thepresence of Mr. Home was likened to the institution’s business ofrunning its schools, and by law, he was an invitee.
Whileconsidering the third argument on the principle of assumption ofsusceptibility, the court examined four aspects. The first one wasthe expressed risk assumption, implied primary, the impliedreasonable and the implied unreasonable (Home v. north Kitsap SchoolDistrict, 1998). It stated that a cogent trier of fact could showthat once the plaintiff revealed the vulnerability that causedinjuries to his leg, he had no reasonable option but to stand infront and care for the players. Hence, a summary judgment would notbe awarded. It reversed and remanded the claims of the trial court.
Conclusively,the North Kitsap School was responsible and owed a duty of care toMr. Home. Since the management of the institution invited theplaintiff to undertake a special duty to their students, then he wassupposed to be protected. Mr. Home injured his leg while on dutyassigned to him by his employer.
Homev. north Kitsap School District 2Wn. App. 709 965 p.2d 1112(Washington Court of Appeals 1998)