In Benitez v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 73 N.Y.2d 650, 541 N.E.2d 29, 543 N.Y.S.2d 29 (N.Y. 1989) Benitez, a high school senior, broke his neck during a varsity football game while correctly executing a block on a kickoff return. He sued the City board of education and its athletic league, claiming, among other things, that they were negligent in allowing him to play without adequate rest. His coach and an assistant principal had warned the school's principal "that the game was a mismatch and should not be played because of the high risk of injury." A star athlete, Benitez participated, as was his wont, in the "great majority of plays" on offense, defense and special teams. Benitez felt fatigued at the time of his injury, but did not tell his coach about his condition. 541 N.E.2d at 30-31. Rejecting Benitez' argument that the defendants owed him an in loco parentis duty of care, the Court of Appeals of New York held that fatigue and, unfortunately, injury are inherent in team competitive sports, especially football. . . . Within the breadth and scope of his consent and participation, plaintiff put himself at risk in the circumstances of this case for the injuries he ultimately suffered. On his own proof, he thus failed to meet the burden of showing some negligent act or inaction, referenced to the applicable duty of care owed to him by these defendants which may be said to constitute a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury. The injury in this case, in sum, was a luckless accident arising from the vigorous voluntary participation in competitive interscholastic athletics. Id. at 34.