In regard to the Kyriazis decision, do you agree with the court's view that the provision of recreational activities to students is a part of a university's mission? That case dealt with "club" sport. How would you extend the rationale to intramural sport? In which case does the argument of an extension of "educational mission" make more sense?

Text:

As a condition of participating in the university's rugby club, participants had to sign a release. Jeffrey Kyriazis, a novice rugby player, signed the release and was injured playing in his first club match. Kyriazis left the game in the second half after he became dizzy and lost his balance. Later, medical tests ascertained that he had suffered a basilar-artery thrombosis. He sued the university for negligence, and the university contended that the release barred suit. The lower court granted the university's motion to dismiss.HOLDINGThe highest court in West Virginia, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, held that the release violated public policy, reversing and remanding the lower court's decision.RATIONALEThe court primarily focused on whether participation in the rugby club was an essential or public service. To do so, the court reviewed the Tunkl criteria and found that "When a state university provides recreational activities to its students, it fulfills its educational mission, and performs a public service" (p. 655). Further-more, "athletics are integral and important elements of the education mission at West Virginia University" (p. 655).The court also noted that the release was signed with a decisive bargaining advantage by the university. University counsel prepared the release, whereas Kyri-azis had no legal representation. Students had no choice but to sign the release if they wished to play.Based on these two factors, the court held that the release was void as a matter of public policy.A 2006 case, Zides v. Quinnipiac University, also noted that college-age stu-dents should not necessarily be characterized as "educated adults," because many of them are not experienced in the risks presented to them in daily life. The court also mentioned the Wagenblast decision (see the earlier Case Opinion) as indica-tive of the public policy concerns that may arise in the context of school waivers.Nonschool sport and recreation as essential service. Most courts agree that, outside of the context of an educational institution, sport, recreation, fitness, and adven-ture activities are not essential services provided to the public. Therefore, use of waivers or releases in those situations does not generally violate public policy. The following Focus Case is indicative of the reasoning used in these