## Facts

- Curtis Parker, age 28, trained for professional wrestling at South Broadway Athletic Club, which had gym equipment and a wrestling ring.
- Robert Harris, a licensed professional wrestler who trained newcomers at the club, trained Curtis in early-stage skills, including safe falling techniques (“bumps”).
- During Curtis’s fourth lesson (July 16, 2002), he reported a severe headache; Harris stopped the session and told him to get out of the ring.
- Curtis later said the headache lasted four to five days and he used over-the-counter pain medication.
- At the fifth lesson (July 22, 2002), Curtis told Harris the headache was gone, said he felt great, and appeared normal.
- Training resumed and included a “power bomb” maneuver in which the trainee is lifted and dropped to the mat on his back.
- After the maneuver, Curtis initially appeared fine, then suffered a seizure; he was taken to the hospital and died nine days later.
- A forensic neuropathologist testified the death was consistent with second-impact syndrome and that the underlying condition could not be diagnosed without advanced medical testing.
- Curtis’s parents sued the club (and initially Harris) for wrongful death, alleging negligent failure to require medical clearance before allowing Curtis to resume training; the claim against Harris settled before submission to the jury.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs made a submissible negligence case by presenting substantial evidence that the club knew or, using ordinary care, should have known Curtis had a concussion and faced a second-impact risk if he resumed training.
2. Whether alleged errors in instructions on assumption of risk and comparative fault warranted reversal, or were harmless if no submissible case was made.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the club.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to make a submissible case because they did not present substantial evidence that the club had actual or constructive knowledge of a concussion or similar brain injury.
- Because the claim failed as a matter of evidentiary sufficiency, any asserted instructional error on assumption of risk or comparative fault was non-prejudicial.

## Legal Principles

- A negligence claim requires proof of facts supporting duty and breach; where the theory depends on the defendant’s awareness of a dangerous medical condition, plaintiffs must show actual or constructive knowledge.
- Constructive knowledge requires that the risk be reasonably discoverable through ordinary care under the circumstances.
- When a participant reports symptom resolution, presents as normal, and expert evidence indicates the latent condition was not reasonably diagnosable without advanced testing, a jury may not infer defendant knowledge from a prior headache alone.
- Instructional errors generally do not warrant reversal absent prejudice; if the plaintiff fails to make a submissible case, alleged errors relating to fault allocation or assumption of risk are harmless.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense verdict because the evidence did not permit a reasonable finding that the club knew or should have known Curtis remained concussed or at risk for second-impact syndrome when training resumed; without that knowledge element, the negligence claim failed and any claimed jury-instruction errors could not have affected the outcome.


Parker v. S. Broadway Athletic Club, 230 S.W.3d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2007)