## Facts

- Florence A. Hornyak was 15 years old and training for a spot on Pomfret School’s crew team.
- On the day of the accident, after roughly one to two and a half hours of rowing practice, she observed and then participated for the first time in an exercise called the “Harvard step test.”
- The Harvard step test required a group of girls to step quickly up and down on a 16-inch-high bench for two minutes.
- Hornyak introduced a photograph showing the bench placed outdoors on a somewhat uneven area of a field.
- A participant in the group immediately before Hornyak’s group lost her balance and fell backward during the same exercise.
- The crew coach was the only supervisor running the test.
- The coach testified that he generally checked the bench for stability, but he did not remember whether he checked it on the day of Hornyak’s fall.
- The coach did not see the earlier participant fall, and he did not see Hornyak fall, because he was watching a stopwatch and counting cadence.
- No staff member or student was stationed as a “spotter” to catch or support participants if they lost their balance.
- Hornyak testified that while stepping she felt “unsteadiness,” “vibrations,” and “general wobbling,” and that after about 30 seconds she fell off the bench and was injured.
- Hornyak sued Pomfret School in federal court (diversity jurisdiction), alleging the school negligently conducted and supervised the step test.
- After Hornyak presented her evidence at trial, the district court granted Pomfret School’s motion for a directed verdict. Hornyak appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence and reasonable inferences in Hornyak’s favor, a reasonable jury could find Pomfret School negligent in the setup and supervision of the Harvard step test.
2. Whether Hornyak presented non-speculative evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that any act or omission by Pomfret School proximately caused her fall and resulting injury.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the directed verdict for Pomfret School.
- The court held that Hornyak’s proof was insufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find that Pomfret breached a duty of reasonable care in conducting or supervising the step test.
- The court also held that the evidence did not permit a reasonable, non-speculative finding that any alleged shortcoming by the school caused Hornyak’s fall, rather than the fall being an unfortunate accident during athletic conditioning.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict is proper when, even taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing reasonable inferences in that party’s favor, no reasonable jury could find for that party; courts may not submit a case to the jury on guesswork.
- Negligence requires proof of duty, breach, causation, and damages; breach must be supported by evidence of what reasonable care required in the circumstances and how the defendant fell short.
- Circumstantial evidence may support findings of negligence and causation, but it must make the plaintiff’s theory reasonably probable; evidence that shows only a possibility of negligence or causation is not enough.
- In evaluating claims arising from school athletic training, the duty is reasonable care, not absolute safety; liability generally requires evidence of an unreasonable hazard or a departure from accepted practice, not merely proof that a participant fell during a conditioning drill.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that Hornyak’s evidence—her description of wobbling, a photograph of a bench on uneven ground, a prior participant’s fall, and the coach’s method of timing and cadence without spotters—did not provide a sufficient factual basis for a jury to determine breach and causation without speculation, so the directed verdict for Pomfret School was properly affirmed.


Hornyak v. Pomfret School, 783 F.2d 284 (1986)