As seen above, the laws may vary greatlyfrom state to state. Hence, coaches, team physicians, athletictrainers, and school administrators need to understand theseprinciples as applied by the courts in their states in order toundertake steps to minimize liabilities.

the vol-unteer was acting within the scope of the volunteer’s respon-sibility in the nonprofit organization or governmental entity atthe time of the act or omission.

Further, the Good Samaritan Act may not apply where “vol-unteers” are in some way compensated for their services.6,25,34,44But “compensation” can come in many forms and is subject tojudicial interpretation.9,14 It remains to be seen if a court mighthold that immunity under the Good Samaritan law is unavail-able if a team physician or athletic trainer receives gifts, food,or intangible benefits, such as self-promotion.

A 19-year-old sophomore signed an“Assumption of Risk” form prior to participating with theschool’s football team. The form acknowledged that cata-strophic injury, including permanent paralysis, brain injury, anddeath, were risks associated with the sport. During a footballpractice, the student suffered heatstroke and died. In refusingto dismiss the case, the court held that although the student’ssignature on the form constituted an assumption of risk ofinjury associated with playing the sport, it did not include inju-ries caused by the school’s negligence

Her coach requested that she perform thehigh jump, which she had never done previously. After receiv-ing some reassurance from her coach, she attempted apractice jump, fell, and tore her ACL. The student sued hercoach, the athletic director, and the school district, claimingthat the coach and director should be liable for requesting thatshe perform the high jump. In dismissing the lawsuit, the courtheld that the coach and athletic director had immunity fortheir discretionary acts as state employees.

However, under these circumstances,the court found the evidence could show that the coach didmore than just urge the student to excel.16 The court held that“[a] sports instructor may be found to have breached a duty ofcare to a student or athlete only if the instructor intentionallyinjures the student or engages in conduct that is reckless in thesense that it is ‘totally outside the range of the ordinary activ-ity’ involved in teaching or coaching the sport.”

The court ruled that “thedoctrine of primary assumption of the risk bars any claim pred-icated on the allegation that the [opposing team’s] pitcher negli-gently or intentionally threw at [plaintiff].”3 The court explained,“[f]or better or worse, being intentionally thrown at is a funda-mental part and inherent risk of the sport of baseball. It is not afunction of the tort law to police such conduct.”

Recently, the Supreme Court of Nebraska in Cerny v CedarBluffs Junior/Senior Public School (Cerny I)4 defined the stan-dard of care applicable to football coaches who alloweda player to return to play and practice after sustaining aconcussion during a football game