A $56 Million Judgment, a $1 Million Policy, and the Jury Instruction That Did It

A San Diego jury awarded Jack Greener $46,475,112.33 after a jiu-jitsu class left him an incomplete quadriplegic. The California Court of Appeal affirmed it. The Supreme Court declined review. With post-judgment interest the judgment now exceeds $56 million — against a $1 million policy. The number is not the lesson. The jury instruction is.

The case of record

The holding, stated precisely

California uses a pattern jury instruction, CACI No. 471, for injuries in sports and recreational activities. It offers the trial judge two options. Option 1 is the familiar one: a co-participant is liable only for conduct that is intentional or so reckless as to be outside the ordinary range of the activity. Option 2 asks whether the defendant unreasonably increased the risks to the plaintiff over and above those inherent in the activity.

The trial court gave Option 2. The Court of Appeal held that was correct, and published the opinion so it binds.

In plain terms: an instructor with superior knowledge, training with a student, is not in the same position as two students rolling together. The instructor is expected not to add risk that the activity did not already contain.

The part the coverage keeps leaving out

Most of what has been written about this case treats it as a general expansion of instructor liability. The opinion is narrower than that, and the narrowing is worth knowing.

The court framed its holding as applying to combat and grappling sports when an instructor engages in the activity while not providing any demonstration or instruction — that is, when the instructor is effectively training rather than teaching. Claims about inadequate instruction, or about a coach pushing a student beyond their capacity, continue to be governed by the older, harder reckless standard. Those are different claims and they are still difficult to win.

The court also took the unusual step of urging the Judicial Council to rewrite CACI 471 so that it is self-contained. Expect that instruction to change.

So the accurate statement is not “instructors are now liable for injuries.” It is: when you stop teaching and start training, the standard you are held to goes up, not down.

What this does not mean

It does not mean every injury is a claim. Primary assumption of risk is intact. Grappling carries inherent risks, students accept them, and the ordinary consequences of hard training remain non-compensable.

It does not mean waivers are worthless — but they are not a plan. In California a pre-injury release of liability for future gross negligence is void as against public policy: City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747. Ordinary-negligence waivers still work. A waiver is a filter for the small claims, not a shield against the catastrophic one.

It does not mean your general liability policy covers this. That is the sentence in this article most likely to cost a reader money. Many commercial fitness policies exclude combat training, sparring, or participant-to-participant injury outright. A $1 million limit against a $56 million judgment is not underinsurance; it is a rounding error.

What a school owner should take from this

Match the technique to the student, and write down when you decide not to. The most useful document a school can generate is a record showing that somebody assessed readiness. “Not ready for that yet” noted in a class log is worth more than any waiver.

Decide, in writing, which techniques are not done in class. Jumping entries, slams, pile-driving neck positions — the ones with a mechanism of catastrophic cervical injury. Competition rules restrict them. Most class curricula do not, because nobody ever wrote it down.

Black belts do not use beginners as demonstration dummies. That is what this case is, stripped of its citation. A senior person applied something to a junior person who could not receive it safely.

Buy professional liability, not only general liability. General liability covers the slip in the lobby. Errors in instruction is a different coverage line, and participant liability has to be confirmed in writing rather than assumed.

Then look at your limits honestly. Ask your broker what happens at $5 million, at $20 million, at $50 million. If the answer is that your entity is exposed, you have found the real finding of Greener.

Insurance packages for martial arts schools generally run in the low thousands a year depending on size, whether striking is taught, whether there is a cage, and whether children’s classes run. That figure is worth comparing against the one at the top of this article.

Frequently asked questions

What was the Greener v. M. Phelps verdict?

A San Diego jury awarded Jack Greener $46,475,112.33 on 28 March 2023 after a Brazilian jiu-jitsu class left him an incomplete quadriplegic. The California Court of Appeal affirmed on 31 December 2024 and the California Supreme Court denied review, with the denial announced 2 June 2025. With post-judgment interest the judgment now exceeds $56 million.

What did the court actually hold?

That the trial court correctly instructed the jury under Option 2 of CACI No. 471 — whether the instructor unreasonably increased the risks beyond those inherent in the activity — rather than the stricter intentional-or-reckless standard used between co-participants. An instructor with superior knowledge is not treated as an ordinary training partner.

Does this mean instructors are liable for any training injury?

No. The court framed its holding narrowly, applying to combat and grappling sports when an instructor is engaging in the activity rather than demonstrating or instructing. Claims of inadequate instruction, or of pushing a student beyond capacity, are still governed by the harder reckless standard. Primary assumption of risk still covers the inherent dangers of grappling.

Does a signed waiver protect a martial arts school?

Only partially, and it varies by state. In California a pre-injury release for future gross negligence is void as against public policy under City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 747, though ordinary-negligence waivers remain enforceable. A waiver filters small claims; it is not a defence to a catastrophic one.

What insurance does a grappling school actually need?

General liability alone is not enough. Confirm in writing that participant-to-participant injury is covered rather than excluded, add professional liability for errors in instruction, and test your limits against a catastrophic-injury scenario. Many commercial fitness policies exclude combat training entirely.

Related reading

• Legislation & Regulation
• Editorial policy