Cite: Kavanagh v Trustees of Boston University. 795 N.E. 2d 1170 (Mass. 2003)
Facts: A collegiate basketball player was ejected from a game in 1998 at Boston University after punching an opponent in the face during a fight. The plaintiff Kenneth Kavangh is seeking suit against Boston University. The issue Kenneth brings is that he witnessed the defendant Boston University’s coach Dennis Wolff encouraging the aggressive type of behavior that sparked the player Levar Folk to start the fight. Kavangh had received a broken nose during the fight. The case brings up the question if a coach can be held responsible for the actions of his players. Kavangh’s case brings up a case of vicarious liability. The liability is discussed as coach Wolff is known for pushing his players to having aggressive playing styles. This style includes lots of shoving and elbowing other players in order to push an advantage. The Folk fight was pushed to happen as coach Wolff cheered and yelled in compliance of it happening which showed his involvement in player actions. The defendants argue that a student is not the same thing as an employee. Therefore, vicaious liability does not apply to Folk, because he has the freedom of a student and not an employee.
Issue: Who is reliable for a student’s actions during a sporting event?
…show more content…
A player on a Rugby team had extended his arm during a tackle which caused the opponent to break his jaw. The judge ruled that the club is responsible due to vicarious liability in having players carry out actions on demand of the club. The player’s action was revealed to be part of a strategy to get rid of one of the three players on the opposing team that would make the game difficult for them to win. This case is different in ruling due to the fact that the players are under a payed contract as an employee to play the