In 1994, Aaris injured her right knee practicing a gymnastic stunt called the “cradle.” The stunt requires that two cheerleaders face each other to form a “base” and launch a third cheerleader, the “flyer,” into the air. After the flyer pikes, she descends toward the ground where the base cheerleaders are supposed to catch her. A fourth cheerleader acts as a spotter to assist in the catch. As the team practiced, the flyer kept landing awkwardly, even scratching the faces of the base cheerleaders. Aaris told her coach that they were having problems cradling the flyer, but the coach attributed their problems to “bad technique” and told them that they “need to keep on trying it over and over again.” Aaris felt uncomfortable performing the stunt and asked: “Do we have to do this stunt?” Her coach responded: “You should be doing it every single time.”
Finally, while trying to do the stunt, the flyer wobbled and fell on Aaris, injuring Aaris’s leg. In 1993, Aaris had received stunt training while she was on the freshman high school cheerleading squad. She had then participated in tryouts and made the junior varsity cheerleader team. Aaris received formal instruction in stunt technique and safety, and she knew that the stunts were dangerous. As a freshman, she injured her left knee performing a toe-touch stunt. Evidence showed that the flyer and the other base cheerleader had also received formal stunt technique and safety training. Aaris sued the coach and school for negligence. The coach and school district asserted the defense of assumption of risk.

CASE QUESTIONS

1. What must Aaris prove in order to hold her coach and the school district liable for her injuries?

2. For a defense of assumption of risk to be successful, what must the coach and school district prove?