## Facts

- A rugby tournament with many teams was held at fields adjacent to a middle school in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
- Robert Carson Patton II played in a match; his father, Donald Lee Patton, attended as a spectator.
- Weather conditions were warm and muggy, with forecasts for possible thunderstorms and a National Weather Service thunderstorm warning.
- During Robert’s match, it was raining; thunder and lightning were allegedly occurring close in time, including lightning “directly over the field.”
- The referee allegedly allowed play to continue and did not suspend the match as conditions worsened.
- After the match, as Robert and Donald walked to their car, both were struck by lightning; Robert survived with serious injuries, and Donald died.
- The family alleged negligence by USA Rugby, a regional rugby union, local tournament organizers, and the referee for failing to suspend play and for failing to implement adequate lightning-safety measures, asserting players and spectators relied on officials to make weather-safety decisions.

## Issues

1. Whether, on the complaint’s allegations, tournament organizers, sanctioning bodies, and the referee owed a duty of reasonable care to protect a player and a spectator from foreseeable lightning risk during and immediately after a match.
2. Whether the negligence complaint stated a legally cognizable claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- Accepting the well-pleaded allegations as true, the court held the defendants could owe a duty of reasonable care to the player and the spectator under the circumstances alleged.
- The court rejected the view that lightning risk necessarily negates duty as a matter of law at the pleading stage.
- The court emphasized that breach and causation were factual matters not resolved on a motion to dismiss.

## Legal Principles

- On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts assume the truth of well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences and determine whether the law recognizes a duty on those facts.
- A duty of reasonable care may arise from the relationship between parties, foreseeability of harm, and policy considerations, including situations involving control over the conduct of an organized activity.
- Even without a traditional “special relationship” label, allegations of (1) foreseeability of harm, (2) defendants’ control over whether play continues, and (3) reasonable reliance by participants and spectators can support a duty to take reasonable safety measures.
- A weather-related hazard such as lightning is not automatically treated as so extraordinary or remote that no duty can exist where warnings and observable conditions plausibly provide notice of danger.
- Recognizing duty for organized sporting events does not determine liability; it permits the claim to proceed so the factfinder can assess breach and causation.

## Conclusion

The court held that the complaint plausibly alleged a duty of reasonable care by rugby sanctioning bodies, organizers, and the referee to protect a player and a spectator from foreseeable lightning danger, and it reinstated the negligence action by reversing the dismissal and remanding for further proceedings.


Patton v. United States of America Rugby Football Union, 381 Md. 627, 851 A.2d 566 (Md. 2004)