Gove, Lindsay 2.8.

2017

Case Summary: Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College

Summary
Drew Kleinknecht suffered a fatal heart attack during an off-season practice for the
Gettysburg College lacrosse team. During the practice, no student or staff athletic trainers were
present. Kleinknechts parents filed a wrongful death and survival action against Gettysburg
College stating negligence and claiming that there was a foreseeable risk of harm while
practicing a sport. Originally the court ruled in favor of Gettysburg College because of the
previous good health of Kleinknecht and the lack of probability that a heart attack would occur
(Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 1992). In 1993 the court reversed its decision
Issue
The court must decide whether or not the college has a legal duty to create preventative
procedures for students participating in school-supervised intercollegiate athletic activities.
Kleinknechts parents argued that Drew was not acting as a private student during the practice, as
he was actively recruited to Gettysburg College for the purpose of playing lacrosse. Ultimately
the question to the court is whether Gettysburg College should be held responsible for their lack
of preventative measures and the actions of the school employees.
Rule
The appellate court based their decision on a simple negligence tort or foreseeability. It is
a foreseeable event that a student athlete may suffer from cardiac arrest during an athletic
activity. The court also used rules such as Beckett v. Clinton Prairie Sch. Corp., Leahy v. Sch.
Bd of Hernando County and Alumni Association v. Sullivan.
Analysis
In Leahy v. Sch. Bd. Of Hernando County, the court ruled that the school had a duty to
properly supervise spring football practices as it was a school approved activity, much like
Kleinknechts lacrosse practice was a school sponsored activity. The court ruled in Alumni
Association v. Sullivan that the student in question had been acting as a private person when he
was injured on a trampoline while intoxicated. Kleinknecht, however, was not as he was
purposely recruited to the college. Because of this, the school owed Kleinknecht a duty of care
based on their special relationship.
Conclusion
The previous rule that Gettysburg College did not have a duty of care to Kleinknecht was
ultimately reversed based on foreseeability and the special relationship between the College and
Kleinknecht. The court also reversed the previous ruling that the College acted reasonably and
that they were entitled to immunity under the Good Samaritan law. The court compared previous
rulings based on public school systems at the pre-college level which arguably may not be equal.
The ultimate decision was made on the fact that Gettysburg College actively recruited
Kleinknecht for the purpose of playing intercollegiate lacrosse, which formed a special
relationship.
CASE SUMMARY: KLEINKNECHT V. GETTYSBURG COLLEGE 2

References
Alumni Association v. Sullivan, 524 Pa. 356, 572 A.2d 1209, 1211 (1990).
Beckett v. Clinton Prairie Sch. Corp., 504 N.E.2d 552, 553 (Ind.1987).
Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 786 F.Supp. 449 (1992).
Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg College, 989 F.2d 1360 (1993).
Leahy v. Sch. Bd of Hernando County, 450 So.2d 883, 885 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984).