Football inherently carries risks, and players are well aware of this reality.
However, the family of a 16-year-old boy who tragically lost his life due to a severe injury is now seeking a court ruling. They want to determine whether his death was just a part of the sport or if it was exacerbated by alleged negligence on the part of his school district.
Michael P. Hernandez, an attorney with HHJ Trial Attorneys, emphasized to The California Post that this distinction is vital under California’s “primary assumption of risk” doctrine.
According to Hernandez, “California follows a doctrine called primary assumption of risk. A player who steps onto a football field accepts the risks that are inherent to the sport itself.”
This means that schools aren’t automatically liable every time a player is injured in a game known for its physicality.
Nonetheless, as Hernandez pointed out, the protection this doctrine offers isn’t absolute. A poorly maintained playing surface, for instance, is not an inherent risk of football; it constitutes a failure in maintenance and safety.
This issue lies at the core of the lawsuit initiated by the family of the deceased player.
According to his family, Christopher, a junior varsity player at South East High School, participated in a varsity game on August 23, 2024. During the match, his head collided with the ground after what his legal team characterized as a “textbook defensive tackle.”
The impact resulted in a catastrophic brain injury, and despite emergency medical care, Christopher passed away 11 days later.
The family alleges that the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) failed to provide safe facilities, proper equipment, and adequate supervision.
This tragedy has reignited discussions about the line between the inherent risks of football and the responsibilities of schools.
Some argue that since Christopher’s family described the tackle as textbook, the incident appears more like an unfortunate accident than a case of school negligence.
However, the family maintains that it’s not the fundamental risks of football that are in question; rather, they assert that the district neglected to address risks that could be managed.
Hernandez mentioned that improperly fitted or defective equipment falls outside the standard risks a player accepts. He also highlighted that supervision and emergency medical responses are responsibilities of the school, not inherent risks of playing.
He pointed out that concussion protocols may also be called into question, noting that the decision to allow an injured player to continue, or not having proper return-to-play procedures, are issues of training and supervision, not inherent to the sport itself.
“He was the funniest kid you’ll ever meet. He was so sweet, caring,” Christopher’s sister, Kimberly Garcia, tearfully recalled.
Hernandez clarified that the legal consideration in the Garcia case is not whether tackling is dangerous—it’s well understood that it is—but whether the supposed failures of the LAUSD regarding the field, equipment, medical responses, and safety protocols put Christopher in a more risky situation than he had agreed to when he put on his gear.
For Christopher’s family, this lawsuit is about more than just one tragic event.
“Our main thing is we just don’t want this to happen to anybody else,” Christopher’s brother said in a press conference on Monday. “It’s terrible.”
