Campagna-McGuffin v. Diva Gymnastics Academy, Inc.

Citation: 2022 Ohio 3885Docket: 2022 CA 00057

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; October 31, 2022; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In Campagna-McGuffin v. Diva Gymnastics Academy, Inc., the Court of Appeals for Stark County, Ohio, affirmed the trial court's judgment granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment on October 31, 2022. The plaintiffs, guardians of several minor gymnasts, initially filed a negligence lawsuit against Diva Gymnastics Academy and its head coach, Travis Seefried, claiming injuries resulting from excessive conditioning practices between 2017 and 2019, which they characterized as punishment and a breach of care according to USA Gymnastics standards. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional claims such as intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. In response, the defendants denied the allegations and asserted that four of the five plaintiffs' gymnasts were dismissed for misconduct. The trial court consolidated this case with a similar one involving another guardian and denied the plaintiffs' opposition to the motion for consolidation. After the defendants filed for summary judgment, the plaintiffs opposed the motion, but the defendants argued that the affidavits submitted contradicted prior deposition testimonies. Ultimately, the court upheld the summary judgment, ruling in favor of the defendants.

Appellants sought to amend their complaint after appellees filed for summary judgment, leading to the trial court allowing a third amended complaint that removed counts for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. The remaining claims included negligence, negligent supervision, and bodily injury with mental anguish. On March 23, 2022, the trial court granted the appellees' summary judgment motion, later issuing a final judgment on April 5, 2022. The court struck appellants' submitted affidavits, citing conflicts with deposition testimonies, and ruled that the appellants failed to demonstrate physical injury attributable to appellees' actions. Additionally, the court determined that appellants' claims were precluded by the Ohio Recreational Activity Doctrine, as they accepted the inherent risks of competitive gymnastics and signed liability waivers. Appellants appealed the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in finding their claims barred by the Recreational Doctrine, in ruling there was no evidence of physical injury, and in striking their affidavits. The court noted that appellants did not challenge the procedural validity of the motion to strike in a timely manner and thus waived any error.

Appellants argue for a de novo review of the trial court's decision to strike affidavits during the summary judgment process. However, established precedent dictates that such decisions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. To establish an abuse of discretion, the Court must find the trial court's decision unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable, rather than simply erroneous. Affidavits contradicting prior deposition testimony may be struck without sufficient explanation, as they cannot create genuine issues of material fact to oppose a summary judgment motion. The trial court assessed the affidavits and detailed how they contradicted the affiants’ deposition testimonies. Although appellants claimed the affidavits were condensed versions of their depositions and did not contradict them, the Court reviewed the relevant documents and upheld the trial court's finding. The appellant-daughters’ affidavits asserted they endured excessive conditioning as punishment, causing physical and emotional injury, but this was inconsistent with their earlier deposition statements. The Court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the affidavits.

Macy McGuffin indicated in her deposition that she enjoyed her conditioning at Diva, complied with requests except for yelling, and did not recall any inappropriate incidents before her fall during a meet. She denied experiencing panic attacks or receiving treatment for physical injuries. Although she initially mentioned a knee injury after frog jumps, she later stated she felt no pain and was uncertain about reporting any knee issues. Heaven Ward described her injuries as typical for the sport, expressing emotional distress from being blamed for actions she did not commit, but she did not attribute physical harm to the coaching at Diva. Jocelynn Benson characterized her injuries, including a sprained ankle and callouses, as normal for gymnastics, attributing her anxiety to high expectations rather than specific incidents at Diva. She also mentioned pre-existing asthma attacks. Abeka Fouts reported only callouses and an injury from a dodgeball incident, stating she never discussed her experiences at Diva with her counselor. Samantha Hawk did not report injuries from conditioning, noting a sprained ankle and toe injury unrelated to coaching. Appellant mothers claimed excessive conditioning caused injuries to their daughters; however, their depositions contradicted these claims. Courtney Hawk did not witness conditioning as punishment and reported no treatment for injuries. Felisha Waltz expressed concerns about mental distress but had not observed improper practices. Shelly Benson acknowledged her daughter's pre-existing anxiety and noted a sprained ankle but did not see inappropriate discipline. Dawn Bagnola, a regular practice attendee, reported no complaints about coaching and acknowledged her daughter's injuries were minimal. Angela Campagna-McGuffin did not witness extra conditioning and noted her daughter sustained a wrist injury and sore back after a fall.

The trial court's decision to strike the affidavits of the appellant-mothers and appellant-daughters was not an abuse of discretion, and the court correctly found that these affidavits could not establish a genuine issue of material fact. Consequently, the appellants’ third assignment of error was overruled. Under Civil Rule 56, summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence presented—such as pleadings and affidavits—demonstrates no genuine issue of material fact, allowing the moving party to be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment should not be granted if material facts are genuinely disputed or if reasonable minds could draw different conclusions from the undisputed facts. The appellate court applies the same review standard as the trial court, conducting a de novo review.

In their first assignment of error, appellants argued that the trial court erred in applying the doctrines of express and implied assumption of risk to bar their claims. Recovery for injuries in sports and recreation is governed by three standards: intentional tort, willful or reckless misconduct, and negligence. Appellants did not claim intentional tort or willful misconduct. To establish negligence, plaintiffs must show that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused injury. However, if a defendant demonstrates that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury in an inherently dangerous activity, the duty of care is negated. Ohio law recognizes three types of assumption of risk—express, primary, and implied—each serving as an independent defense to negligence claims.

Primary assumption of the risk serves as a robust legal defense, indicating that the defendant had no duty to protect the plaintiff from a specific risk associated with an activity. Courts must carefully evaluate whether this defense entirely precludes a plaintiff's recovery. When successfully invoked, it negates the establishment of the duty element in negligence claims, preventing the plaintiff from demonstrating a prima facie case. This defense falls under the court's purview as a legal issue, particularly in recreational or sports contexts where participants accept inherent risks and can only recover for injuries caused by reckless or intentional actions of others.

The doctrine relieves recreation providers of the obligation to mitigate risks that are intrinsic to the activity, as these risks are often unavoidable. Risks involved in a recreational activity must be foreseeable and customary. To apply the primary assumption of the risk doctrine, three criteria must be met: the danger must be ordinary to the game, widely recognized, and the injury must result from that danger during gameplay. The specifics of the sporting activity are crucial in determining the appropriate duty of care, with unreasonable risks assessed based on the rules and norms governing that sport.

In this case, appellants argued that the trial court incorrectly applied the primary assumption of the risk doctrine to dismiss their claims, asserting that the activities they mentioned (e.g., butt scoots, frog jumps) were not typical or inherent to the sport. They referenced the Simmons v. Quarry Golf Club case, which distinguished between ordinary risks of golf and those that are not foreseeable, such as falling into an uncovered drain hole, illustrating that not all risks are inherent to the sport.

In this case, the exercises and conditioning activities described by the appellants, such as frog jumps, butt scoots, and pull-ups, are deemed normal and routine for high-level competitive gymnastics training. Witnesses, including Seefried and Ford, confirmed that these conditioning methods are essential for building strength in core, upper body, and legs. Testimonies highlighted that gymnasts regularly engage in rigorous conditioning, resulting in common physical injuries like callouses, muscle soreness, and other ailments, which the gymnasts consider part of the sport. 

Appellants contend that the excessive conditioning violates the USAG Safe Sport Policy, arguing that this negates the assumption of risk doctrine. They reference an expert affidavit stating that the appellees' actions constituted abusive behavior not inherent to gymnastics. However, it is established that not all violations of a sport’s rules equate to negligence; the assessment of unreasonable risk involves understanding the sport's customs and rules. Previous cases illustrate that rule violations alone do not necessarily lead to liability if the actions do not create an unreasonable risk of harm. 

Moreover, testimony from multiple individuals indicated that reports were made to USAG regarding potential violations of the Safe Sport Policy. A letter from USAG to Seefried acknowledged receipt of such allegations but stated that the informal inquiry would be closed without formal action.

Appellants' submission of an expert affidavit claiming that appellees violated the Safe Sport Policy and that such conduct is not inherent in gymnastics does not establish a genuine issue of material fact. The expert, Jacki, based his opinions on affidavits from the plaintiffs and their mothers, as well as depositions from several individuals, but notably did not review the depositions from the appellant-mothers or daughters. His analysis relied on inconsistent affidavits from the appellants, conflicting with the depositions regarding the nature of injuries and the observations of the appellant-mothers. Courts can disregard unsupported allegations in affidavits. The trial court did not err in applying the primary assumption of risk doctrine, which barred the appellants’ negligence claims. Appellants contend that the trial court wrongly applied the express assumption of risk doctrine, arguing the signed release only covers inherent risks and does not specify the activity leading to injury. Each appellant-mother signed a "Release, Indemnification, and Hold Harmless Agreement" prior to the alleged incidents, and all confirmed their signing of the release during depositions conducted at the time of their daughters’ registration for gymnastics at Diva, with signatures dated between June 2016 and July 2019.

The Release document states that the signer agrees to release DIVA GYMNASTICS ACADEMY, INC., along with its affiliates (collectively referred to as “Releasees”), from liability related to negligence for themselves and their children. Key points include:

1. Acknowledgment of Risks: The signer recognizes that gymnastics involves inherent risks that may lead to physical or emotional injuries, including but not limited to those associated with various gymnastics activities. The signer understands that these risks cannot be eliminated even with safety measures.

2. Acceptance of Risks: The signer voluntarily accepts and assumes all risks associated with participation in gymnastics activities and acknowledges that participation is voluntary. They commit to ceasing participation if conditions appear unsafe.

3. Release and Indemnification: The signer agrees to release, indemnify, and hold harmless the Releasees from any claims related to their participation, except for claims arising from intentional misconduct. The signer acknowledges that they may forfeit their rights to sue for negligence by signing this document.

4. Consultation and Bargain: The signer affirms they had adequate time to read the document and consult legal counsel before signing. They understand the activity may not be accessible or may be more expensive without signing the release, deeming the terms a reasonable agreement.

5. Parent or Guardian Agreement: The parent or guardian agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Releasees from any negligence claims related to the minor’s participation. The document cites relevant case law establishing the validity of exculpatory clauses, the authority of parents to bind minors to such agreements, and clarifies that claims of wanton or willful misconduct are not alleged in this context. 

Overall, the document serves as a comprehensive liability waiver for participants in gymnastics activities, emphasizing the acceptance of risks and limitations on legal recourse against the academy.

For the express assumption of risk to prevent recovery, a party must clearly and intentionally accept the consequences of another's negligence. Waivers of liability must be explicit and unambiguous, and courts typically enforce these waivers if they clearly outline the types of liability and the parties involved. In the relevant case, the Release explicitly mentioned “negligence” several times and identified the parties being released, making it sufficiently clear to bar recovery. Although the appellants argued that their claims were not barred due to the absence of the term "conditioning," they had previously accepted risks associated with various gymnastics activities, as indicated in the Release. The language also acknowledged inherent risks, including those that could lead to physical or emotional injuries. The court determined that the Release's clarity supports the express assumption of risk defense, which independently bars recovery. The appellants' first assignment of error regarding this defense was overruled. In their second assignment of error, the appellants claimed the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment by overlooking evidence of physical injury due to a lack of medical treatment, asserting that they could demonstrate physical injuries regardless of treatment received.

The trial court granted summary judgment on the basis that the appellants failed to establish that they suffered injuries proximately caused by the appellees’ breach of duty, which is a critical element of the negligence test. The court clarified that its decision was not solely based on the absence of medical treatment but rather on the lack of evidence supporting any physical injury linked to the appellees' actions. The court referenced deposition testimonies from the appellants that contradicted their claims of physical injury and noted that the injuries described were typical of high-level gymnastics training and not attributable to the appellees. 

Appellants argued for recovery of emotional distress damages related to a physical injury; however, the case law they cited pertained to negligent infliction of emotional distress, requiring different elements than ordinary negligence. The court reaffirmed that emotional distress claims could not arise from fears of non-existent physical harm and that recovery for emotional distress typically necessitates accompanying physical injury. 

While appellants presented an affidavit from Jacki suggesting injuries due to the appellees' actions, the trial court found this insufficient as Jacki had not reviewed relevant depositions and the affidavit contained contradictory claims regarding the injuries. Ultimately, the trial court did not err in its conclusion that the appellants did not meet the necessary criteria for the negligence claim, leading to the affirmation of its judgment. The appellants' assignments of error were overruled.