$850k pain and suffering plus medical. If she has permanent scarring on her face then this might be a reasonable claim, although the claims of umbrella anxiety and PTSD seem extreme. They'll settle confidentially. I'm surprised she is just suing the Oregon coach. Wouldn't be surprised to see UCD get sued as well for allowing an unsafe condition on its property.

No assumption of risk?

Been a LONG, LONG time since I was in law school (and I NEVER practiced personal injury law,) but "assumption of the risk" and "contributory negligence" have generally been replaced by something called "comparative fault" or "comparative negligence." Anything the plaintiff recovers would be offset to the extent the jury determines the plaintiff is at fault for their own injuries. Hard to say how much an athlete is at fault for participating in a contest at the direction of their school and coach.

It's safe to say that the Oregon coach and other defendants will file some sort of cross-complaint or other pleading against UC Davis and the NCAA for allowing the game to proceed in harsh weather conditions as well as other acts of negligence. Mental suffering, anxiety, PTSD...all things probably added more by the player's attorneys than the player to increase any recovery or to apply more pressure to resolve the case.

I will weigh in on this although I have not practiced in some time. Generally speaking the player assumes the risk of an injury that is reasonably expected could happen in the course of the athletic contest. So in volley ball, a poke in the eye, a crash injury at the net, even a broken leg, or any sort of injury the player should reasonably expect as part of the game he or she is playing, could be raised as the defense of “Assumption of the Risk” to the claims of negligence by the defendant, i.e. Oregon in this case. But here, a loose umbrella in the wind that had previously been removed from the court, and then put back on the court by the assistant coach which then became loose again and severely lacerated the face of the athlete,, that would not be a risk that the volleyball player would reasonably assume as part of the accept risks of the contest. So, no “Assumption of the Risk” defense in this case IMHO.