Orr v. Brigham Young University
United States District Court for the District of Utah
960 F. Supp. 1522 (1994)
- Written by Brianna Pine, JD
Facts
Vernon Peter Orr (plaintiff) attended Brigham Young University (BYU) (defendant) from 1988 to 1990 and played varsity football for two seasons. Orr claimed that during that time, he developed back pain. Following the 1989 season, a medical examination revealed that Orr had three herniated disks. Orr subsequently left BYU to play professional football in Finland and did not return to complete his degree. Orr filed suit against BYU alleging that BYU was negligent in numerous respects, including: (1) promoting a win-at-all-costs mentality, (2) using psychological pressure to push players to sacrifice their health, (3) employing unqualified individuals to diagnose and treat football injuries, (4) misdiagnosing his back condition, (5) approving him for and encouraging him to play while injured, (6) prioritizing winning games over his physical and mental well-being, and (7) abandoning him academically and failing to provide assistance with his education once his playing career ended. BYU moved for summary judgment, arguing that, aside from duties related to the provision of medical care, the duties Orr alleged were not legally recognized obligations owed by a university to its student athletes.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sam, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

