Ashley Allen
Southern New Hampshire University
Case Brief
Home v. North Kitsap School District
2 W.N. App. 709 (1998)
Facts:
Plaintiff Kurt Homes claimed a broken leg during monitoring a middle school football game as
an athletic director after a player of the rival squad slammed into him and pushed Home off the
curb. To shield his players from any harm, plaintiff Home stepped in front of the curb. Despite
not being the same student organization that controlled the facility, the claimant launched a
complaint on the school system. The school board maintains that since claimant Home was
conscious of the hazards, they could be exempted from the enjoyment area regulation.
Issues:
The controversy in this case is whether or not claimants committed to the field's restrictions prior
to obtaining damages. The offender will not be accountable for the claimant's harm if he
expressed agreement. Was the claimant an attendee or a licensee, too?
Holding:
The injuries Home received occurred throughout a school function, but the school system failed
to assert exemption since the area was being used for a political gathering. Even though the
claimant was aware of the risks involved in what he was conducting, it was the only way he
could safeguard his athletes.
Rationale:
The complainant said that there was no alternative option to prevent the tragedy from unfolding,
but he did not claim that he was aware of the dangers while making his choices. This being the
circumstance, Home was capable of not taking on unsafe situations since he responded like
anyone in his condition would have. In this situation, the participant was the claimant. The
claimant was obligated to the school province's services, but they were not performed since the
field's circumstances were retained. The recreation land act, in the textbook, stipulates that the
"owner has legal control and authority of land and water or channels to make them open to the
public for enjoying games." This signifies that whatever concerns, such as this that emerge on
the owner's playing field or venue are the obligation of the agency's operator.
Question/Discussion:
As stated in the textbook, even though the complainant was well aware of the dangers on the
field, he was ultimately left with no option but to put himself in danger in order to secure his
team, which contributed to the damage he later incurred. The Home would have required a
unique means of shielding his players without endangering himself to qualify this as judged
assumption of chance, but he did not.
References
Cotten, D. J., & Wolohan, J. T. (n.d.). Chapter 2. In Law for Recreation & Sport Managers.
HOME v. NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT (Court of Appeals of Washington,Division 2
December 2, 1998).
