Pirkle v. Oakdale Union Grammar School Dist., City of Oakdale, Stanislaus County

• Court: California Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: EDMONDS; GIBSON; CARTER
• Citation: Pirkle v. Oakdale Union Grammar School Dist., City of Oakdale, Stanislaus County, 253 P.2d 1, 40 Cal.2d 207 (Cal. 1953)
• Decision Date: 10 February 1953
• Parties: PIRKEL et al. v. OAKDALE UNION GRAMMAR SCHOOL DIST., CITY OF OAKDALE, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS et al. Sac. 6268.

Page 1

253 P.2d 1

40 Cal.2d 207

PIRKEL et al. v. OAKDALE UNION GRAMMAR SCHOOL DIST., CITY OF OAKDALE, COUNTY OF STANISLAUS et al.

Sac. 6268.

Supreme Court of California, in Bank.

Feb. 10, 1953.

Rehearing Denied March 9, 1953.

Vernon F. Gant, Frederick W. Reyland, Jr., County Counsel, and William R. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, Modesto, for appellants.

C. Ray Robinson, Margaret A. Flynn, James A. Cobey and William B. Boone, Merced, for respondents.

EDMONDS, Justice.

William H. Pirkle, an eighth grade student at the Oakdale Union Grammar School, sustained injuries while playing in a game of touch football. The chief ground relied upon by the school district, B. W. Gripenstraw, its principal, and Jules Perrin, the instructor in physical education, for a reversal of the judgment against them and orders denying certain motions is that there is no evidence upon which liability for damages legally may be based.

The jury, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and giving them the benefit of all inferences reasonably to be drawn from it, might have found the following facts: During noon recess periods, the boys in the seventh and eighth grades were permitted to engage in 'free play' activities. The games at such times included touch football, in which a 'tackle' is accomplished by touching the ball carrier with both hands. Bodily contract is limited to a shoulder or body block, with both the blocker's feet on the ground. When properly regulated, the game is not rough.

Free play games were not a part of the required physical education program, and the boys participated in them only if they elected to do so. A team representing the seventh grade competed against another from the eighth grade. One boy from each grade was captain and chose the players for his team. As was customary in free play games, the participants were not selected according to age, size, or weight. As a consequence, the players ranged in weight from 85 to 190 pounds.

At the time of the accident, William was a member of the eighth grade team. He was 13 years, from months, of age, five feet, four inches tall, and weighed approzimately 97 pounds. During the game he blocked Jack Perkins, a seventh grade student weighing 145 pounds, who was five feet, ten inches tall, and 14 1/2 years old. William was struck in the abdomen by Jack's knee. He remained in the game for the next two or three plays and then went to the sideline, where he lay down on a bench.

He was then sent to a first aid room where Griperstraw had him lie down and covered him with a blanket. Near the close of the school day, Perrin came to see him. When William passed urine at Perrin's suggestion, it was observed that the urine contained blood. Perrin then took William home. This was about two hours after the accident. William's spleen and left kidney were removed about five hours later.

John Pirkle, the boy's father, sued for damages in the amount of his expenditures for William's medical care and, as guardian ad litem for William, for damages for the injuries the boy sustained. The theory of the complaint was that the defendants negligently failed properly to supervise the game, and that Gripenstraw and Perrin carelessly neglected to give William prompt medical attention. Named as defendants were Perrin, Gripenstraw, the school district, and the members of its board of trustees. The demurrer of the trustees was sustained and the action dismissed as to them.

During the trial, the motions of the defendants for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict were denied. The jury returned a verdict for William of $7,500 and awarded the father $800. Motions by the defendants for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial were denial. The appeal is from the judgment entered upon the verdict and from an order denying the motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

The principal ground relied upon in challenging the judgment is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict. It is argued that there is no evidence justifying the jury's implied finding that the defendants were negligent in supervising the game, or that William sustained injury because of a negligent failure to provide prompt medical attention.

The standard of care required of an officer or employee of a public school is that which a person of ordinary prudence, charged with his duties, would exercise under the same circumstances. Bellman v. San Francisco High School Dist., 11 Cal.2d 576, 581 81 P.2d 894; Hough v. Orleans Elementary School Dist., 62 Cal.App.2d 146, 155, 144 P.2d 383; Buzzard v. East Lake School Dist., 34 Cal.App.2d 316, 321, 93 P.2d 233; Ellis v. Burns Valley School Dist., 128 Cal.App. 550, 553, 18 P.2d 79. The plaintiffs take the position that the jury reasonably might have found that the defendants failed to maintain proper supervisorial control of the manner in which the game was played.

In their physical education classes, the boys received instruction in the rules of touch football, including demonstrations of the correct methods of blocking and tackling. They were skilled in the game, having played it many times previously. Immediately prior to the contest, they again were instructed that blocking was to be done with both feet on the ground, and were warned that rough play would not be tolerated. Perrin, the physical education instructor, acted as referee and Hass, his assistant, as head linesman. The injury occurred in the course of a play executed in accordance with the rules of the game; no charge is made that any of the players conducted himself improperly. In short, there is no evidence sufficient to predicate negligence upon a failure to supervise the playing of the game.

The Pirkles assert that the defendants were negligent in the manner in which the players were segregated. They contend that the jury reasonably might have found that the defendants should not have allowed boys of such different weights to paly in the game in which William was injured. Specifically, they argue, the players should have been segregated according to an 'exponent chart' which was used in connection with the required physical education programs and inter-school games.

Physical education programs in the elementary schools are an accepted part of the curriculum. Education Code, § 8252; Underhill v. Alameda Elementary School Dist., 133 Cal.App. 733, 735, 24 P.2d 849. A recognized and desirable part of such programs consists of organized free play games of the type here concerned. Kerby v. Elk Grove Union High School Dist., 1 Cal.App.2d 246, 248, 36 P.2d 431, 94 A.L.R. 1502. However, the difficulty in administering such activity is well illustrated by the evidence in the present case. To fill the teams, 22 boys must be selected from those desiring to play. Such selection must be made in a manner permitting the smaller boys to compete with safety and some degree of success, and yet without denying to the larger boys opportunity to participate. If the classification is made too narrow and rigid, particularly in the smaller schools, a sufficient number of players will not be available to make up the teams.

The evidence shows that the selection of players for free play games according to grades is a convenient and practical method of segregation. That such method is utilized throughout the state is competent evidence of the reasonableness of its use by the defendants in the present case. Perumean v. Wills, 8 Cal.2d 578, 583, 67 P.2d 96. All the evidence is to the effect that touch football is not a dangerous or rough game. Several witnesses testified that, although the practice of matching the seventh against the eighth grade had been followed extensively throughout the county, they knew of no serious injury prior to the one to Pirkle. From this evidence, it must be concluded that the method of segregation employed by the defendants was a reasonable one.

This determination is not affected by the fact that so-called 'exponent charts' were used in connection with interscholastic contests and in the required physical education periods. Such charts classify the pupils according to certain combinations of age, height, and weight. According to the evidence, apart from the fact that they are useful only where there is a large group of boys to draw from, the charts are designed primarily to present equal opportunities of competition, and, if at all, only partially for the safety of the participants. However, the uncontradicted testimony of school officials using the chart is to the effect that the classifications are broad enough to permit a variation in weights at least as great as that involved in the present case. In addition players in the lower classifications are permitted to compete in the higher classifications if they possess sufficient skill. In short, the evidence fails to establish such charts as a standard of care, the failure to observe which may be deemed negligence.

This conclusion is not inconsistent with the holding in Bellman v. San Francisco High School Dist., 11 Cal.2d 576, 81 P.2d 894. In the Bellman case, a high school girl was injured during a required physical education period while attempting to perform a tumbling exercise. There was evidence...