Sports coaching and the law of negligence: implications for coaching practice

The ordinary principles of the law of negligence are applicable in the context of sport, including claims brought against volunteer and professional coaches. Adopting the perspective of the coach, this article intends to raise awareness of the emerging intersection between the law of negligence and sports coaching, by utilising an interdisciplinary analysis designed to better safeguard and reassure coaches mindful of legal liability. Detailed scrutiny of two cases concerning alleged negligent coaching, with complementary discussion of some of the ethical dilemmas facing modern coaches, reinforces the legal duty and obligation of all coaches to adopt objectively reasonable and justifiable coaching practices when interacting with athletes. Problematically, since research suggests that some coaching practice may be underpinned by “entrenched legitimacy” and “uncritical inertia”, it is argued that coach education and training should place a greater emphasis on developing a coach’s awareness and understanding of the evolving legal context in which they discharge the duty of care incumbent upon them.

PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY OF AMATEURS: THE CONTEXT OF SPORTS COACHING

The developing intersection between the law of negligence and sports coaching in the UK provides a profoundly distinctive context, as compared to that of the more traditional learned professions, in which to critically examine the issue of professional liability. More specifically, detailed consideration of the Bolam test in the context of sports coaching, where the majority of coaches are volunteers, reinforces the Bolam doctrine as a control mechanism designed to protect both claimants and defendants alike. Importantly, a fuller analysis of related jurisprudence, even in instances where defendant coaches lack a formal qualification, and/or may not have engaged in considered and reasoned decision-making, reveals the potential for the Bolam test to operate as a quasi-defence, thereby safeguarding coaches from negligence liability. Nonetheless, in discharging this heightened standard of care incumbent upon them, coaches must ensure that the coaching practices adopted are regular, approved, and capable of withstanding robust and logical scrutiny. Ultimately, this article’s analysis of the principles of professional liability, in the specific circumstances of sports coaching, should prove to be of appreciably wider interest and utility for practitioners specialising in personal injury law.

Legal liability of coaches: a UK perspective

Attracting more coaches is fundamental to achievement of the European dimension in sport and the further promotion of sport in the European Union. Given the emerging relationship between the law and sports coaching, recruitment of such volunteers may prove problematic. Accordingly, this article critically considers the legal liability of sports coaches. To inform this debate, the issue of negligent coaching is critically scrutinised from a UK perspective, uncovering a number of distinct legal vulnerabilities facing volunteer coaches. This includes the inherent limitations of ‘objective reasonableness’ when defining the standard of care required in the particular circumstances. More specifically, fuller analysis of the justification of customary practice, and the legal doctrine of in loco parentis, reveals important ramifications for all organisations providing training and support for coaches. In short, it is argued that proactively safeguarding coaches from professional liability should be a priority for national governing bodies, and, following the recently published EU Work Plan for Sport for 2014–2017, the Expert Group on Human Resource Management in Sport. Importantly, given the EU’s supporting, coordinating and supplementing competence in developing the European dimension in sport, a Commission funded project to address the implications of the ‘compensation culture’ in sport is also recommended.

PROGNOSTIC FACTORS PREDICTING FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME AT FOUR MONTHS FOLLOWING ACUTE ANKLE SPRAIN

PROGNOSTIC FACTORS PREDICTING FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME AT FOUR MONTHS FOLLOWING ACUTE ANKLE SPRAINBleakley C.M.1, O'Connor S.R.1, Tully M.A.2, Rocke L.G.3, MacAuley D.C.1, Bradbury I.4, Keegan S.4, McDonough S.M.11University of Ulster, Health & Rehabilitation Sciences Research Institute, Newtownabbey, United Kingdom, 2Queen's University, UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health (NI), Belfast, United Kingdom, 3Royal Victoria Hospital, Department of Emergency Medicine, Belfast, United Kingdom, 4Frontier Science (Scotland), Kincraig, Inverness-shire, United KingdomPurpose: To identify clinically relevant factors assessed following acute ankle sprain that predict functional recovery at four months post-injury.Relevance: Ankle sprains are one of the most common musculoskeletal injuries with an estimated 5000 new cases occurring each day in the United Kingdom. In the acute phase, ankle sprains may be associated with pain and loss of function. In the longer-term there is a risk of residual problems including chronic pain or reinjury. Few studies have sought to examine factors associated with a poor long-term prognosis.Participants: 101 patients (Age: Mean (SD) 25.9 (7.9) years; Body Mass Index (BMI): 25.3 (3.5) kg/m2) with an acute grade 1 or 2 ankle sprain attending an accident and emergency department or sports injury clinic. Exclusion criteria included complete (grade 3) rupture of the ankle ligament complex, bony ankle injury or multiple injuries.Methods: Participants were allocated as part of a randomised controlled trial to an accelerated intervention incorporating intermittent ice and early therapeutic exercise or a standard protection, rest, ice, compression, and elevation intervention for one week. Treatment was then standardised in both groups and consisted of ankle rehabilitation exercises focusing on muscle strengthening, neuromuscular training, and sports specific functional exercises for a period of approximately four to six weeks. On initial assessment age, gender, mechanism of injury, presence of an audible pop or snap and the presence of contact during the injury were recorded. The following factors were also recorded at baseline and at one and four weeks post-injury: weight-bearing dorsi-flexion test, lateral hop test, presence of medial pain on palpation and a positive impingement sign. Functional status was assessed using the Karlsson score at baseline, at week four and at four months. Reinjury rates were recorded throughout the intervention phase and at four months.Analysis: A mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the effect of each factor on functional status at week four and at four months. Significance was set at a Bonferroni adjusted level of 0.0125 (0.05/4).Results: Eighty-five participants (84%) were available at final follow-up assessment. Pain on weight-bearing dorsi-flexion and lateral hop tests at week four were both associated with a lower functional score at four months post-injury (P = 0.011 and P = 0.001). No other significant interactions were observed at any other timepoint (baseline or week one). There were only two reinjuries within the four month follow-up period with a further two reported at approximately six months post-injury. We were therefore unable to determine whether any factors were associated with an increased risk of reinjury.Conclusions: Potential prognostic factors on initial or early examination after acute ankle sprain did not help predict functional recovery at four months post-injury. However, pain on weight-bearing dorsi-flexion and lateral hop tests observed at four weeks were associated with a slower rate of recovery.Implications: Some clinical tests may help identify patients at risk of poor functional recovery after acute ankle sprain. However, further work is required to examine factors which may be predictive on initial assessment.Key-words: 1. Prognostic factors 2. Recovery 3. Ankle sprainFunding acknowledgements: Physiotherapy Research Foundation, Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, Strategic Priority Fund; Department of Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland.Ethics approval: Office for Research Ethics Committee (UK).