LEARN
MORE

Instructor’s Improper Technique and Heightened Risk Lead to $46 Million Verdict in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Injury Case

CATEGORY: Private Education Matters
CLIENT TYPE: Private Education
DATE: Jan 29, 2025

Jack Greener began training in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu in 2015 and had approximately six months of experience across multiple dojos before joining the Del Mar Jiu-Jitsu Club (Club) in San Diego, California. The Club was owned and operated by M. Phelps, Inc.

Greener was a white belt student, and although inexperienced compared to higher belt levels, he had competed in amateur tournaments and demonstrated proficiency higher than the typical white belt.

Jiu-Jitsu classes at the Club included students of all belt levels. Sessions involved warm-ups, technique demonstrations, and sparring. In Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, sparring partners typically do not disclose their moves in advance, and instructors are expected to prioritize safety and control.

One day, Greener sparred with his instructor, Francisco Iturralde. At one point, Greener was in a “turtle position” (elbows and knees on the ground, head tucked). Greener said that Iturralde applied a “seatbelt grip” to control Greener but deviated from standard technique. His grip immobilized Greener’s arm, leaving his head and neck unsupported. Greener alleged that Iturralde then attempted a risky maneuver requiring precise control. During execution, he lost control but proceeded with the move anyway, causing Greener to sustain a catastrophic neck injury.

Greener sued Iturralde for negligence and M. Phelps, Inc. for vicarious liability, alleging the instructor’s actions unreasonably increased the risks inherent in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu sparring.

At trial, Greener’s expert witness testified that the grip and maneuver were improperly executed, significantly increasing the risk of injury. He stated that an expert instructor like Iturralde should have abandoned the move upon losing control.

The Club’s expert defended the technique as common in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, but admitted on cross-examination that proper head and neck control was lacking. Iturralde himself acknowledged that he recognized the potential for harm but claimed he could not stop once the maneuver began.

Under California’s primary assumption of risk doctrine, instructors are typically not liable for injuries caused by inherent risks of a sport. However, liability may arise if: (1) the instructor intentionally caused harm or acted recklessly (Option 1); or (2) the instructor unreasonably increased the risks inherent in the sport (Option 2).

Greener argued that Iturralde’s actions went beyond inherent risks by improperly executing a maneuver and failing to adjust or abandon it upon recognizing the danger.

The defendants claimed that the primary assumption of risk doctrine applied, shielding them from liability unless recklessness could be shown. They argued that the maneuvers were within the range of typical Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu activity.

The trial court instructed the jury on Option 2 of the primary assumption of risk doctrine finding it most applicable to the facts. The jury found for Greener, awarding $46 million in damages.

The defendants appealed, arguing that the trial court erred on instructing the jury to apply the Option 2 standard, and that the trial court excluded evidence, mostly about Greener’s prior experience and Iturralde’s teaching.

The Court of Appeals held that Option 2 was the appropriate instruction because Iturralde acted more like a co-participant during sparring than an instructor. While sparring, he had superior knowledge and control, creating an elevated risk for Greener by improperly executing the maneuver. The Court noted that Greener was not injured due to a move he was challenged or directed to perform; instead, he was injured by his instructor’s unilateral choices to immobilize him and apply moves, which increased the risk of injury to him. As the instructor, the Court concluded that Iturralde was rightly held to a different standard than the students.

The Court emphasized that an instructor’s role carries heightened responsibilities. Iturralde’s failure to maintain proper control and his decision to proceed despite recognizing danger constituted unreasonable risk-enhancing conduct.

The Court rejected arguments that imposing liability would chill participation in sports like Jiu-Jitsu. Instead, it concluded that liability in such cases promotes safety and preserves the integrity of the sport.

The Court also upheld the trial court’s exclusion of certain defense evidence as cumulative or irrelevant, including videos of unrelated Jiu-Jitsu matches and testimony about Greener’s past wrestling experience.

The Court affirmed the trial court’s $46 million judgment.

Greener v. M. Phelps, Inc. (2024) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 845].

Note: This case shows that an employer’s and coach’s liability in sports injury cases can depend on whether the instructor unreasonably increased risks beyond those inherent in the sport.

View More News

Private Education Matters
Court Upholds Public School’s Discipline For Student’s AI Use
READ MORE
Private Education Matters
Court Finds Peer Bullying And School’s Response To Bullying Is Unrelated To Student’s Disability
READ MORE