June 2016 - Parks & Recreation - 38

L AW R E V I E W

during all activities that are subject
to the control of the school. " Once a
court finds this special relationship
exists under the circumstances of a
particular case, the jury, not the court,
would " determine whether, under the
relevant circumstances, the school employee has acted unreasonably and,
therefore, breached the duty owed. "
In particular, the state supreme
court found Florida courts have " recognized that the duty of supervision
creates the following specific duties
owed to student athletes: (1) schools
must adequately instruct student athletes; (2) schools must provide proper
equipment; (3) schools must reasonably match participants; (4) schools
must adequately supervise athletic
events; and (5) schools must take appropriate measures after a student is
injured to prevent aggravation of the
injury. " In so doing, the state supreme
court noted further that other jurisdictions " have acknowledged similar
duties owed to student athletes. "
Accordingly, since " Abel was a
student who was injured while he
participated in a school-sponsored
soccer game under the supervision

of school officials, " the state supreme
court concluded the school board
" owed Abel a duty of supervision
and to act with reasonable care under
the circumstances. " Specifically, the
state supreme court found the school
board owed Abel a legal duty to
" take appropriate post-injury efforts
to avoid or mitigate further aggravation of his injury. "
Reasonable Care Jury Issue
The state supreme court noted further that " reasonable care under the
circumstances " is a legal standard
that " may fluctuate with time, the
student's age and activity, the extent
of the injury, the available responder(s) and other facts. " In particular,
the court found reasonable care will
fluctuate over time in response to
" advancements with technology and
equipment available today. " Within the context of this case, the state
supreme court noted that equipment
like a " portable AED to treat an injury were most probably unavailable
20 years ago, and may be obsolete 20
years from now. "
As a result, the state supreme court

would " leave it to the jury to determine, under the evidence presented, whether the particular actions
of respondent's [i.e. school board]
employees satisfied or breached the
duty of reasonable care owed. " In so
doing, the state supreme court rejected the decision of the appeals court
to " narrowly frame the issue " as to
whether the school board had " a
specified duty to diagnose the need
for or use an AED on Abel. " In the
opinion of the state supreme court,
" reasonable care under the circumstances is not and should not be a
fixed concept, " but a " factual matter
for the jury " to consider.
We reject the attempt below [by
the appeals court] to specifically define each element in the scope of
the duty as a matter of law, as this
case attempted to remove all factual
elements from the law and digitalize
every aspect of human conduct.
In the opinion of the state supreme
court, " the flexible nature of reasonable care delineated here can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. " Otherwise, the state supreme court noted a
defined legal duty " could require every high school to provide an AED at
every athletic practice and contest, the
result could be great expense. " While
the applicable legal duty to use " reasonable care to supervise and assist
students " remained unchanged, the
state supreme court found " the methods and means of fulfilling that duty
will depend on the circumstances. "
Different Legal Relationships
As cited by the lower courts, an earlier decision had " determined that
the duty owed by a commercial
health club to an adult customer
only required employees of the club
to reasonably summon emergency
responders for a patron in cardiac

36	 Parks & Recreation

| J U N E 2 0 1 6 | W W W. PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N . O R G
June 2016 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of June 2016 - Parks & Recreation
