Moreover, multiple courts have determined that soccer is a "high-contact sport." Draut v. Van As, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA99-07-131, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 2047, at *7 (May 15, 2000), citing Nganga v. College of Wooster, 52 Ohio App.3d 70, 72, 557 N.E.2d 152 (9th Dist. 1989), and Bentley v. Cuyahoga Falls Bd. of Edn., 126 Ohio App.3d 186, 190-92, 709 N.E.2d 1241 (9th Dist.1998). {ΒΆ 23} As previously discussed, Kumar was aware that soccer is a physical sport and he knew that injuries, including serious injuries, could result.
She stated that pushing, shoving and tripping, although not necessarily part of the game, occurs, and is a risk players assume when they chose to play. Other Ohio courts have determined that soccer is a high-contact sport.Nganaga v. College of Wooster (1989), 52 Ohio App.3d 70, 72;Bentley, 126 Ohio App.3d at 190-92. Appellee contends that summary judgment was appropriate because the evidence indicates pushing is a foreseeable aspect of playing soccer.
Nor is there a material issue as to negligent supervision because Kline did not present any evidence that OID, FFI, or their agents, knew that Moore or his team members had a propensity for violence or were likely to intentionally cause injury. Brown, supra; Nganga v. College of Wooster (1989), 52 Ohio App.3d 70, 557 N.E.2d 152. Kline argued that Referee Mercer "should have known that the continuation of the game would create an unreasonable risk of harm to the participants," but failed to provide any evidence that Referee Mercer had superior knowledge to Kline's or the other players' and either recklessly or negligently allowed the game to be continued. From the evidence presented, it appears that Kline, with his thirty years of soccer experience, had at least as much knowledge of any potential for injury in the game as appellees.
Accordingly, no genuine issue of material fact exists under the theory of negligent supervision. Our decision is in accord with the reasoning of the Wayne County Court of Appeals in Nganga v. College of Wooster (1989), 52 Ohio App.3d 70, 557 N.E.2d 152. In that case, a player alleged that the College of Wooster was negligent in the supervision of an intramural game after sustaining an injury caused by the opposing team's rough play.