## Facts

- Vernon Peter Orr attended Brigham Young University (BYU) from 1988 to 1990 and played varsity football for two seasons.
- In August 1988, during a blocking drill, Orr developed low-back pain and was evaluated and treated by BYU’s athletic training staff with modalities such as heat, massage, mobilization, and electrical stimulation.
- Orr alleged his position coach criticized him for missing practice and encouraged him to continue practicing despite pain; he resumed practice after treatment and later stopped seeking training treatment after several sessions.
- Orr experienced additional episodes of back pain during practices; symptoms sometimes improved quickly after renewed treatment.
- During 1989, Orr reported gradually increasing back pain and stiffness during spring practice, continued playing, and later underwent evaluation that revealed multiple herniated discs.
- Orr left BYU without completing his degree and later played professional football abroad.
- Orr alleged BYU: (i) applied psychological pressure within a “win-at-all-costs” culture; (ii) used unqualified personnel to diagnose/treat injuries and cleared him to play while injured; and (iii) failed to support his academics and education after his playing career ended.
- Orr sued on negligence-based theories, including a claimed “special relationship” duty, a duty based on BYU’s alleged creation of risk, a theory tied to trainers allegedly practicing medicine without a license, and medical negligence for diagnosis and treatment of his back injury.

## Issues

1. Whether a university owes a broad, affirmative tort duty to protect a student-athlete based on a “special relationship” arising from intercollegiate athletics.
2. Whether operating a football program and encouraging participation while injured constitutes “creation of risk” imposing broad protective duties beyond ordinary negligence principles.
3. Whether alleged misdiagnosis and treatment by athletic trainers and team medical personnel supports a cognizable medical-negligence claim.
4. Whether permitting trainers to evaluate and treat athletic injuries creates civil liability framed as “practicing medicine without a license,” independent of ordinary negligence standards.
5. Whether tort law imposes a duty on a university to provide extensive academic or post-athletics educational support to a student-athlete as alleged.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for BYU on Orr’s non-medical theories seeking broad duties tied to program culture, coaching pressure, academic support, and a generalized “special relationship.”
- The court declined to recognize an expansive affirmative duty requiring a university to structure or police coaching motivation and competitive pressure as a tort obligation.
- The court allowed a narrow claim to proceed for medical negligence based on alleged negligent diagnosis and treatment of Orr’s back condition.
- The remaining medical-negligence claim was later dismissed with prejudice after Orr could not present supporting expert testimony; subsequent appellate review affirmed the district court’s rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Negligence requires duty, breach, causation, and damages; the existence and scope of duty is a question of law.
- A university–student-athlete relationship, without custodial-type control, does not create a broad “special relationship” imposing wide-ranging affirmative duties to protect the athlete from self-harm or the general risks of the sport.
- Courts will not impose open-ended tort duties to regulate program philosophy, coaching methods, or psychological pressure inherent in competitive athletics absent a recognized legal standard.
- “Creation of risk” concepts do not justify converting ordinary athletic participation and coaching influence into a generalized duty to prevent injury; any actionable duty remains tied to specific negligent acts within recognized categories.
- When a university undertakes to provide medical evaluation and treatment to athletes, it may owe ordinary medical-negligence duties as to diagnosis, referral, and treatment decisions.
- Claims styled as “practicing medicine without a license” do not, by themselves, expand civil tort duties beyond established negligence and malpractice frameworks.

## Conclusion

The court refused to expand tort law to impose broad, quasi-custodial duties on a university for coaching pressure, athletic program culture, or academic life-management of student-athletes, but recognized a limited duty in the provision of medical care, allowing only a narrowly framed medical-negligence claim to proceed.


Orr v. Brigham Young Univ., 960 F. Supp. 1522 (D. Utah 1994)