Deposition Summary of

Jane Brown

Case # 000: Jones v. City Schools

January 4, 2001

Examination by Mr. Fall:

6 Ms. Brown considers the mile and up to be the longer distance events in track and field. She notes that 1600 meters equals a mile at the high school level.

7 Ms. Brown notes that there is no set standard for training, that it varies from one institution to another. She says she has never seen or been handed a manual on safety.

8-9 Ms. Brown says she did not rely on any written documents or standards on safety or training in formulating her opinion on this case because she doesn’t know of any that are universal. She agrees that her opinion is based on her experiences as a coach.

9-10 A review of Ms. Brown’ understanding of this case. She is in agreement with the attorney regarding the facts of the case.

11-12 Ms. Brown doesn’t think there’s a different standard of safety for a high school student versus a college student. She agrees that, as a coach, she feels a duty to look after the safety of the sport participants. She attempts to provide an environment “as safe as possible within my control.”

12-13 Ms. Brown explains a normal training modality for one week for a long distance runner. She notes that workouts take place either on the track, the cross-country course or the roads. She states that, regarding long distance, there is not a different training procedure for cross-country than there is for track.

14 Ms. Brown describes the three different types of running—track, cross-country course and roads.

15 Ms. Brown confirms that a 1600, a high school event, is four laps around a normal track; a 3200 is eight laps. She agrees that both the 1600 and 3200 competitions are run on the track itself, although training for the events can involve the cross-country course and road work.

16-18 Ms. Brown agrees, after some confusion regarding the question, that the only time highways would be involved is when road work is being used.

18-20 Ms. Brown states that road work is used for a tempo or “fartlek” run. She agrees that the primary purpose for road work is for endurance. Lawyers debate meaning of a question. Ms. Brown agrees that, if there is an area where running long distances is possible without going on a roadway, she would avoid the roadway/highway if it “had a lot of heavy traffic on it.”

21 Ms. Brown confirms that her participants run on state highways, noting the 45/46 Bypass which is a two-lane road. She says her runners do cross the road. She agrees if facilities were available to run 3 miles, 5 miles or longer distances without getting on a roadway, she would prefer those facilities for safety purposes.

22-23 Ms. Brown is asked if, assuming there’s facilities that could allow training for endurance and fartlek, she believes it’s safer to keep runners on facilities rather than having them cross a highway. She replies, “I guess my preference is yes, I’d rather cross the highway because we still cross the highway.”

24-25 Ms. Brown feels it’s as safe to cross a state highway than it is to not cross that highway “if you cross at an intersection.” She instructs her participants to cross at the intersection. If there is no intersection, she believes the road is still safe to cross “if they looked both ways.” She confirms that it’s a rare occasion when her runners cross a road where there is no intersection.

25-26 Ms. Brown is asked whether, if there were 60 to 70 acres of land to run on, it would be safer to stay on those facilities rather than crossing a road. She responds that it “depends on the terrain. If it’s made for running. And if the footing is good.” She goes on to say that if the footing is good, she would not cross a highway.

26-29 Ms. Brown prefers her participants to run while facing traffic. She agrees that, if running clockwise around a rectangular area with the roadway on the south side, one would have to cross the road to accomplish running against traffic. She also agrees that, if running counterclockwise (to the left), one could run against traffic without crossing the road. She feels that the counterclockwise rotation would be safest, and this route would be her preference.

30 Ms. Brown believes that the amount of direction a coach should give regarding safety is the same for both high school and college participants. She agrees that safety is a primary duty of a track or cross-country coach.

31 Ms. Brown confirms that, in a letter to her lawyer, she states: “There is no way that it is humanly possible to be at each runner’s side. In my professional opinion, there’s an assumption of risk on the part of the student who elects to join a long distance running program.”

32-33 Ms. Brown says the coach has a duty to provide a safe environment for track participants. She is not saying in her letter that the coach has no duty to give direction regarding safety. She states, “When someone comes out for your cross-country team or for your distance running part of your track team…they assume…that they’re going to go out and run in, in situations that might be considered dangerous.”

34-35 Ms. Brown says she gives instructions to runners that take safety into account, and that she expects them to follow her instructions. She agrees that if she was aware of circumstances where a runner was in unsafe conditions, she would change those particular instructions.