$46.5 Million Verdict Upheld in Jiu-Jitsu Injury Case
A court ruling on a $46.5M injury case reshapes accountability standards for sports instructors, balancing inherent risks with safety obligations in training.
Updated on
In a significant decision, the California Fourth Appellate District Court affirmed a $46.5 million verdict awarded to Jack Greener, a Brazilian jiu-jitsu student who suffered catastrophic injuries during a 2018 sparring session. Greener's injuries, including a broken neck and spinal cord damage, were sustained while sparring with Francisco Iturralde, an instructor at Del Mar Jiu-Jitsu Club. The court upheld a San Diego jury's finding that Iturralde's actions had unreasonably increased the risks inherent in jiu-jitsu, leading to the devastating incident.
Greener was awarded approximately $9.8 million for past and future medical expenses and $36 million in non-economic damages for pain and suffering.
The Appeal
The defendants, Iturralde and the Del Mar Jiu Jitsu Club, argued on appeal that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding the inherent risks of Brazilian jiu-jitsu. They contended that the jury should have been asked whether the instructor’s actions were reckless or intentional rather than focusing on increased risk.
The appellate court majority disagreed, emphasizing that Iturralde’s advanced expertise positioned him differently from other students. The court held that Iturralde should have been held to a higher standard as an instructor, particularly given his conduct during the sparring session. The majority described a somersault maneuver performed by Iturralde after immobilizing Greener as creating a "heightened risk" not inherent to the sport.
The Dissenting Opinion
Justice Joan K. Irion dissented, raising concerns about the potential chilling effect the ruling could have on hands-on instruction in high-risk sports. Irion cautioned that the decision might discourage instructors from fully engaging with students due to fears of liability.
The Law Firms Involved
Plaintiff's Counsel: Rahul Ravipudi, Paul A. Traina, and John W. Shaller of Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP; Shawn D. Morris, Michael Malady, and Christian W. Barton of Morris Sullivan & Lemkul LLP; Rupa G. Singh and Victoria E. Fuller of Niddrie Addams Fuller Singh.
Defendant's Counsel: Sabrina H. Strong and Aaron Henson of O'Melveny & Myers LLP; Robert T. Bergsten of Hosp Gilbert & Bergsten.
The Implications
This ruling highlights the responsibilities of instructors in inherently dangerous sports to mitigate risks rather than exacerbate them. By affirming the significant jury award, the court underscored the importance of maintaining safety standards in training environments.
As litigation involving sports injuries continues to evolve, this decision may influence future cases where the line between inherent risk and instructor negligence is contested.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the outcome of the Jiu-Jitsu injury case involving Jack Greener?
The California Fourth Appellate District Court upheld a $46.5 million verdict awarded to Jack Greener for injuries he sustained during a jiu-jitsu sparring session.
How did the court rule on the appeal in the Jiu-Jitsu injury lawsuit?
The court upheld the $46.5 million verdict awarded to Jack Greener, affirming that the instructor's actions unreasonably increased the risks inherent in jiu-jitsu.
What are the implications of the $46.5 million verdict for Jiu-Jitsu instructors?
The $46.5 million verdict emphasizes the need for Jiu-Jitsu instructors to adhere to higher safety standards and mitigate risks during training, as failure to do so can lead to significant liability in cases of injury. This ruling may also discourage instructors from engaging fully in hands-on training due to fears of legal repercussions.
