## Facts

- Brent Cerny, a high school football player, struck his head on the ground while tackling during a game on September 15, 1995.
- After leaving the game briefly, Cerny told the coach he felt dizzy and short of breath; the coach observed no disorientation or abnormal responses and heard no complaints of headache, nausea, or blurred vision.
- Cerny testified he also reported disorientation and extreme weakness and later experienced a continuous headache through the next practice.
- The coach spoke with Cerny again about 15 minutes later; the coach believed Cerny appeared normal and allowed him to re-enter the game.
- Cerny returned to football practice the following Tuesday and suffered another head impact, resulting in a closed-head injury.
- Medical testimony supported that Cerny likely sustained a concussion in the game and that the later hit caused “second concussion syndrome” and traumatic brain injury.
- Cerny sued the school district under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, alleging the coaching staff negligently failed to identify and respond to the initial concussion and negligently permitted return to play and practice.

## Issues

1. Whether, on remand, the trial court correctly applied the standard of care for school coaches to the coaching staff’s return-to-play and supervision decisions.
2. Whether the trial court’s finding that the coaches were not negligent was clearly erroneous given conflicting lay and expert evidence.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the school.
- The Court held the trial court properly used the standard of care for a reasonably prudent person holding a Nebraska teaching certificate with a coaching endorsement.
- The Court held the trial court’s finding that the coaches met that standard and were not negligent was supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.
- The Court deferred to the trial judge’s credibility determinations and resolution of conflicting testimony in the bench trial.

## Legal Principles

- In negligence claims against school athletic coaches, the applicable standard of care is that of a reasonably prudent person with a Nebraska teaching certificate and coaching endorsement supervising student athletes.
- In a bench trial, appellate review of factual findings is for clear error; appellate courts do not reweigh evidence and defer to the trial court on credibility and disputed facts.
- Even where medical evidence supports that a concussion occurred and later injury followed, liability turns on whether the coaches’ conduct fell below the applicable standard based on what they knew or reasonably should have known at the time.

## Conclusion

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the student-athlete’s tort claim because the trial court applied the correct coaching standard of care and its finding of no negligence by the coaching staff was not clearly erroneous.


Cerny v. Cedar Bluffs Junior/Senior Public School, 679 N.W.2d 198 (Neb. 2004)