By Scott McLean, Sarahann Rackl, Raina Shah, and Bryan Strohman

Artificial turf systems are widely used across schools, municipalities, and professional sports facilities. Turf systems are also utilized for larger landscaping applications such as airports and landfill coverings. Recent project failures and litigation trends have brought increased scrutiny to artificial turf systems, including allegations that they present multi-dimensional risk related to design, construction, product performance, environmental and health exposure, and potential injury.  

Artificial turf fields are engineered systems, not just surface products. Performance depends on the interaction of turf materials, infill, base layers, and subsurface drainage. When performance issues arise, such as ponding, premature wear, or loss of playability, disputes often follow, involving designers, contractors, manufacturers, and owners. Similarly, as engineered systems with reasonably varied design, artificial turf fields may be associated with an equally varied risk of injury. These issues may prompt questions about how potential risks were communicated and whether warnings or instructions adequately addressed known performance, health, maintenance, or injury-related risks. 

Common Drivers of Turf Failures 

Recent investigations continue to identify recurring factors that may contribute to turf failures, as discussed by Strohman and Lewis in Drainage of Artificial Turf Fields (2016) and by Strohman in Drainage of Artificial Turf Systems: Lessons Learned (2019): 

• Material variability: Minor changes in base gradation or fines content can significantly affect the drainage characteristics of turf systems 
• Grading and site integration: Concentrated flow paths and runoff from adjacent sites and properties can lead to ponding and clogging of the turf 
• Inconsistent laboratory versus field permeability performance: Laboratory results may be several orders of magnitude higher than field conditions during rain events 
• Geotextile placement: Improper installation can restrict surface and subsurface flow over time 
• Field conditions: Unsaturated behavior, air entrapment, and infill contamination and migration can reduce overall drainage performance of the turf system 

These issues often emerge after installation, when remediation is costly, and disputes escalate. 

From a construction perspective, recent turf-related disputes highlight the importance of evaluating projects beyond initial installation and cost considerations. Owners and operators are increasingly expected to assess lifecycle performance, including durability, drainage functionality, and long-term maintenance obligations, while also accounting for evolving environmental and regulatory risks associated with materials used in turf systems.  

At the project level, careful documentation of design decisions, material specifications, and installation practices is becoming equally critical, particularly in light of disputes involving alleged deviations, performance shortfalls, or misrepresentation. In addition, drainage — one of the most frequent sources of performance-related claims — must be evaluated as an integrated system that includes surface, subsurface, and site-wide stormwater interactions, rather than isolated components. This system-level approach is essential not only for achieving intended performance outcomes, but also for mitigating risk and supporting defensibility in the event of future claims. 

For counsel and insurers, these projects often involve overlapping claims that extend well beyond traditional construction defect theories — encompassing product liability, environmental exposure, and tort-based allegations, which in turn require coordinated, multidisciplinary expert analysis across engineering, materials science, and environmental disciplines. 

Litigation Trends: Expanding Beyond Failures and Construction Concerns 

Recent turf-related litigation reflects a shift toward broader, more complex claims: 

1. Product Liability and Large-Scale Claims 

Two notable cases underscore the significant financial exposure associated with large-scale turf installations and highlight the increasing scrutiny on product representations, warranty obligations, and lifecycle performance in artificial turf systems.  

In July 2025, a nationwide class action involving defective turf systems resulted in a multi-million-dollar settlement with school districts and municipalities alleging premature deterioration and misrepresentation. The litigation centered on claims that certain turf products failed well before their expected service life, despite manufacturers’ representations regarding durability and longevity, leaving public entities to bear substantial repair and replacement costs. Plaintiffs further contended that manufacturers were aware of performance issues but continued to market and sell the systems without adequate disclosure, leading to widespread installation across hundreds of fields nationwide.  

In 2022, the Texas Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling in favor of a contractor sued by a school district over turf installation. The Court found that the contractor’s warranty obligations were limited to the terms of the contract. The contractor warranted in its contract that its work would be free from defects not “inherent in the quality permitted and that the Work [would] conform to the requirements of the Contract documents.” The contract did not warrant that the actual material utilized, or its installation, complied with all ASTM standards.

These disputes additionally illustrate how turf-related claims may extend beyond product performance and warranty issues to involve questions about risk communication and consumer understanding; namely, whether marketing materials, product literature, warranties, maintenance guidance, or safety disclosures created unreasonable expectations regarding durability, injury risk, environmental characteristics, or lifecycle costs. 

2. Human Health Claims 

Claims related to potential exposure to contaminants in turf systems, including crumb rubber infill, and airborne particulates, continue to be actively studied and debated within the scientific and regulatory communities. These issues have attracted attention from a wide range of parties, including researchers, regulators, parents, athletes, schools, municipalities, and other stakeholders who are evaluating the potential risks and benefits associated with synthetic turf installations.  

While some studies have identified the presence of metals, volatile organic compounds, and other substances in crumb rubber, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) released its March 2026 final report evaluating cancer risk associated with synthetic turf and concluded that there is no significant increase in cancer risk from either on-field or off-field exposure to chemicals in crumb rubber infill. OEHHA examined multiple exposure pathways, including inhalation of dust and particulates, dermal contact, and incidental ingestion, particularly for athletes and children who have repeated, prolonged contact with these surfaces. This finding provides an important benchmark in the ongoing discussion, particularly for municipalities and school districts navigating installation decisions and potential liability concerns.  

As scientific understanding and regulatory perspectives around artificial turf systems continue to develop, health-related concerns may remain part of broader discussions regarding product stewardship, stakeholder communications, and the adequacy of information provided to those evaluating, installing, operating, or using artificial turf systems. For manufacturers, owners, operators, insurers, and counsel, these evolving discussions may increasingly affect project costs or timelines, risk communication and management strategies, and overall risk assessment of potential liability. 

3. Injury and Evolving Liability Theories 

A growing body of research and professional sports data suggests that artificial turf may be associated with higher rates of certain non-contact lower-extremity injuries, particularly involving the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), Achilles tendon, and ankle joint complex (Ngatuvai et al., 2022; Calloway et al., 2019; Gould et al., 2023). These injuries are often linked to the surface’s overall hardness, stiffness, and associated coefficients of dynamic friction. Together, these properties may reduce surface “give”, or compliance, and subsequently increase hip, knee, and/or ankle joint loading during rapid deceleration, cutting, or pivoting – maneuvers common in a variety of high-impact sports, such as football, soccer, field hockey, and lacrosse. Environmental conditions and associated accommodations can also impact associated risks, with factors like heat, humidity, turf watering, and maintenance directly influencing player-turf interactions and the resulting joint loading experienced during activity. 

It is important to note that studies remain inconsistent on whether total injury rates differ meaningfully between turf and natural grass, with some analyses showing comparable overall injury incidence across surfaces. Further work in this area may thus be warranted. Regardless, there may be value to considering the potential for such injury risks and underlying governing factors during the design of artificial turf systems. 

In addition to the aforementioned injuries, artificial turf has been associated with higher rates of abrasions (“turf burns”), elevated surface temperatures that can increase the risk of heat illness, and greater cumulative joint stress, again linked to turf-related joint loading phenomena. Taken together, the evidence suggests that while turf does not uniformly increase all injury risk, it may present distinct, surface-specific hazards that are particularly relevant for dynamic high-impact sports, and may thus factor into claims involving field performance and player safety. These concerns continue to receive significant attention across all levels of sports, from amateur to professional, particularly amid ongoing debate regarding the relationship between artificial turf and player injuries. As a result, what begins as a drainage, durability, or performance issue can quickly evolve into a complex, multi-party dispute involving legal, environmental, regulatory, and liability-related implications.  

How Secretariat Can Assist 

Artificial turf disputes often require a multidisciplinary approach that integrates engineering, materials science, human factors, biomechanics, product stewardship, environmental sciences, and health risk assessment. Secretariat assists clients throughout the lifecycle of these matters, from proactive product design and development, testing, evaluation, and associated risk management to forensic investigations and litigation support. Our experts evaluate drainage performance, ponding, durability, and long-term system behavior, while identifying the relative contributions of design, construction, installation, maintenance, and material factors to alleged failures. We conduct technical analyses and modeling under realistic rainfall, usage, and environmental conditions and assess human health and environmental risks associated with synthetic turf systems, including issues involving PFAS and alternative material technologies. Our team also evaluates alleged turf-related injuries through combined laboratory and real-world analyses of injury mechanisms, causation, and outcomes.  

Turf-related claims regarding environmental exposures, health risks, and other injury risks may raise broader questions about risk communication, including whether additional or different warnings were warranted, and whether risk-related disclosures addressed the concerns most relevant to parents, athletes, school administrators, coaches, and other stakeholders. In product liability and risk communication matters, we assess failure-to-warn allegations, marketing and warranty representations, maintenance guidance, safety disclosures, and other product literature, while also assisting clients with the development and evaluation of warnings, instructions, safety communications, and broader risk management strategies. By combining scientific rigor with practical industry experience, Secretariat helps clients understand complex technical issues, manage emerging risks, and effectively resolve disputes involving artificial turf systems.