Olympian can move forward with injury claims against USA Track & Field
Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Court of Appeals on Wednesday reinstated Olympian Taliyah Brooks’ amended lawsuit against Indianapolis-based USA Track & Field, reversing a lower court’s decision.
Brooks filed her lawsuit against USA Track & Field after suffering heat-related injuries while competing in the 2021 U.S. Olympic Heptathlon Trials in Eugene, Oregon.
“With this ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals, which has reinstated Taliyah Brooks’ lawsuit against USA Track & Field, Taliyah has cleared a major legal hurdle in her path to holding USA Track & Field legally accountable for ignoring USATF’s duty to protect the health and safety of U.S. athletes,” Brooks’ attorney William Bock said.
USA Track & Field’s attorney Crystal Rowe did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
While the ruling allows Brooks’ injury claims to move forward, it upholds the waiver, release of liability, assumption of risk, and indemnity agreement that track athletes must sign to participate in sanctioned competitions.
The court notes that while the indemnity agreement protects USA Track & Field from negligence claims, it does not grant the same protections for “gross negligence.” Consequently, Brooks can move forward with any claims of gross negligence.
Brooks’ counsel argued before the state appellate court in August that USA Track & Field could have prevented Brooks’ injuries by moving the event later in the day to take advantage of cooler temperatures as it has done for other events.
The appeals court sent the case back to Marion Superior Court for further proceedings, and it noted that if USA Track & Field has challenges to Brooks’ injury claims then it can raise them with a motion for summary judgment or other motions.
Since 2021, Brooks has continued her track and field career, qualifying for the 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris and finishing in 11th place overall in the heptathlon.
Indiana Court of Appeals Judge Rudolph Pyle wrote the majority opinion for the three-judge appeals court panel.
Judge Melissa May concurred with the majority opinion. Judge Elaine Brown however concurred in part and dissented in part with a separate opinion.
Brown agreed with her colleagues that the trial court did not err in its ruling on the parties’ summary judgment motions regarding the enforceability of the waiver and indemnity agreement under Indiana law.
She disagrees with their conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Brooks’ motion to amend her complaint.
“Upon review of the record, which includes the oral argument held before this Court, and in light of our well-settled standard of review, I cannot say that the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or that the court has misinterpreted the law,” Brown wrote.
She concluded that she would find no abuse of discretion and that the trial court properly denied Brooks’ motion to amend her complaint.