A high school coach from Louisville, Kentucky, will soon go to trial on charges of reckless homicide and wanton endangerment in the heat-exhaustion-related death of one of his players, 15 year old Max Gilpin, a sophomore offensive lineman who died three days after collapsing during a sweltering practice. If convicted, Stinson faces a maximum of five years in prison. This is thought to be the first time a coach has been charged with criminal conduct arising out of the death of a player on the practice field.
At first blush the would appear to be a simple civil matter. While criminal charges are uncommon in such occurrences civil negligence lawsuits are not. School districts get sued when these things happen. Money damages are paid. People grieve and get on with their lives. What sets the case apart?
Heat exhaustion is a known risk in high school athletic. Tragedies do happen. At what point does the civil liability become criminal conduct? It appears that the parents were the driving force in this being presented to the grand jury. Max Gilpin’s father in a joint family statement stated:
“… what we have learned about the coaches’ conduct at the football practice that led to Max’s collapse and death is inexcusable, as was the lack of urgency and the delay in seeking medical treatment after Max collapsed and never regained consciousness. We intend to closely monitor the prosecuting and expect everyone responsible for Max’s death to be held accountable.”
Here are the reported facts:
1. Witnesses allegedly watched Stinson allegedly put players through running drills for almost 45 minutes and the running did not end until a player quit
2. Witnesses reported that when players asked for water, they were told no.
3. Emergency medical services were not called until at least 17 minutes after Gilpin collapsed
Here is how the Kentucky Reckless Homicide Statute reads:
“reckless homicide is when a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur”
Does denying someone water in a high exertion activity in 94 degree heat create a substantial and unjustifiable risk? I am not a doctor but if I am sitting on the jury I would have to say yes. Based the facts most likely presented to the grand jury they had no choice but to indict. While there will certainly be other evidence presented, based on what we know to date, the coach may very well be convicted if this is not plead out and the jury follows the law. The last time I looked, “this is the way it has always been done“ was not a valid defense. There is another perspective as well. High school teachers are often considered “in loco parentis” ” which means “in the place of a parent” A high school football coach can be in “in loco parentis“ standing as well. High schools often have the parents of children in athletics sign forms putting the coach in loco parentis if something happens to the child. It is unclear if such a form was signed in this case. This puts the coach to a much higher standard. If a parent had denied water to his/her child and the child died you can bet the parent would be prosecuted.
Richard Warfield, a Dallas criminal attorney had this to say:
“Without knowing all the facts or circumstances surrounding this tragedy I cannot be certain if the Grand Jury erred. However, I tend to agree that this will set a tremendous precedent. No doubt word has already spread throughout the coaching world. Coaches and schools will seek legal opinions, cautious lawyers will issue cautious recommendations and the trend will be to “water down” practices, making them less strenuous. I don’t know how coaches can be sure a player is not “dogging” it or is faking. Just like our schools have dumbed down their curricula, there will be pressure to dumb down football practices, or even practices in other difficult sports like lacrosse or wrestling. This is what happens in an overly litigious society. “
This is a tough call. Should not coaches who take charge of our children with our expectation that they will look out for their best interests in our absence must be held to a higher standard. Is the punishment harsh? As compared to a dead child? While this is the first time a coach has been prosecuted it is not uncommon in criminal law for acts that are negligent as compared to intentional to be criminalized. This case is not unusual in that regards. While I feel for the coach I see the parents point of view.
©2009 Brian Cuban
Enjoy this piece? Be sure to join the Cuban Revolution Fan Club and/or subscribe to my newsletter to stay abreast of future posts and live celebrity interviews on The Revolution Rant
Dr. Andre Oboler PH.d will be my next guest on the Revolution Rant Tuesday, September 1, 2009 at 10am(CT). Dr. Oboler is considered one of the foremost experts in the world on online hate speech particularly in the area of antisemitism. He holds a Ph.D. in computer science from Lancaster University, UK and in 2007-2008 he was a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Political Science at Bar-Ilan University, Israel. He is a former Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, and edits ZionismOnTheWeb.org – a website countering on-line hate.
