## Facts

- Andrew “Andy” Koffman, a 13-year-old middle-school student and first-time football player, joined the school football team as a third-string defensive player.
- James Garnett, an assistant coach employed by the county school board, supervised and instructed the team’s defensive players.
- After the team’s first loss, Garnett became upset about inadequate tackling and remained displeased at the next practice.
- Garnett ordered Andy to hold a football and stand upright and motionless so Garnett could demonstrate tackling technique.
- Without warning, Garnett grabbed Andy, lifted him off the ground, and slammed him to the ground.
- Andy (about 144 pounds) suffered a broken left humerus; Garnett weighed about 260 pounds.
- The pleadings alleged no coach had previously used physical force on players to instruct rules or techniques.

## Issues

1. Whether the pleadings stated a claim for gross negligence based on the coach’s conduct during practice.
2. Whether the pleadings stated a claim for battery by alleging lack of express or implied consent in the context of organized sports.
3. Whether the pleadings stated a claim for assault when the contact was alleged to have occurred suddenly and without warning.
4. Whether sovereign immunity barred claims for simple negligence against a school employee acting within discretionary governmental functions.

## Decision

- The court affirmed dismissal of the simple-negligence claim on sovereign-immunity grounds.
- The court reversed dismissal of the gross-negligence claim, holding the alleged facts could support a finding of gross negligence.
- The court reversed dismissal of the battery claim, holding the alleged lack of consent was sufficient at the pleading stage.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the assault claim because the pleadings did not allege apprehension of imminent contact.
- The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- On demurrer, courts accept as true all well-pleaded material facts and reasonable inferences and test only legal sufficiency.
- Gross negligence is conduct showing utter disregard of prudence amounting to complete neglect of another’s safety; it may be found even in risky activities when conduct exceeds ordinary risks.
- Participation in an organized sport may imply consent to foreseeable contacts within the rules and customs of play, but implied consent is fact-dependent and does not automatically extend to all contacts during practice or instruction.
- Battery requires an intentional, unpermitted touching that is harmful or offensive; alleging lack of express or implied consent can suffice to plead battery in the sports setting.
- Assault requires an act intended to cause reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact; sudden, unannounced contact may defeat the apprehension element.
- Sovereign immunity may bar simple-negligence claims against certain public employees performing discretionary governmental functions, but it does not bar gross negligence or intentional torts.

## Conclusion

The court held that sovereign immunity foreclosed liability for simple negligence, but the pleadings plausibly alleged gross negligence and nonconsensual harmful contact sufficient to proceed on gross negligence and battery, while the assault claim failed for lack of alleged apprehension.


Koffman v. Garnett, 574 S.E.2d 258 (Va. 2003)