Eighteen year old girl knocks speeding cyclists over to protect children; Sudden Emergency Doctrine stops suit

Posted: May 6, 2013 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Camp for Minors, Case Analysis, Cycling, New York | Tags: Central Park, Cycling, Cyclists, Day Camp, New York, New York City, NY, Oasis Children's Services, Recreation, summer camp, Summer Enrichment program | Leave a comment »

Pavane v. Marte, 37 Misc. 3d 1216A; 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5128; 2012 NY Slip Op 52060U

Cyclists deserved it to.

This is a lawsuit over an injury a cyclist received when he crashed in New York City. He crashed because an eighteen year old summer enrichment program counselor shoved him over with her “Stop Children Crossing” sign when he failed to stop at a light.

A summer enrichment program is a day camp for kids when parents have to work. The kids are taken on tours, programs, exercise and many involve a lot of outdoor recreation. In this case, the kids with two counselors were walking to a swimming pool. The program was run by the defendant Oasis Children’s Services.

While crossing a street only half the students made it across the street before the light changed. The defendant counselor kept her students back until the light changed again. She then proceeded out to the middle of traffic and held up a sign which said Stop Children Crossing. As the students started to cross she noticed a group of cyclists coming towards the crosswalk. All but one of the cyclists stopped. The one who did not stop was the defendant.

As per the protocol of the program, the counselor was supposed to yell at cyclists who look like they are not going to stop. If the cyclists do not stop a counselor it to put their body between the bicycle and the kids. (That is asking a lot of an 18-year-old kid!)

The light was red; the cyclist was not stopping so the counselor put her body between the kids and the cyclists. The cyclists still did not stop. The counselor waived her sign and yelled at the cyclists. At the last moment, she jumped out of the way, and she pushed the cyclists arm with her sign.

He crashed!

The cyclists sued for negligence that he crashed because a girl pushed him with a sign. The defendants raised the defense of the Sudden Emergency Doctrine.

Summary of the case

The sudden emergency doctrine has many different names and variations across the US. You should check your state to determine if it is available as a defense how the defense is defined. Do not rely on the sudden emergency doctrine to save you, it rarely does.

In New York, the Sudden Emergency Doctrine is defined as:

Basically, it says you can be negligent for the greater good. If your negligence is less than the damage or problem that not being negligent will create, then the Sudden Emergency Doctrine provides you a defense to a negligence claim.

In this case, the court found the actions of the defendant counselor in pushing the cyclists saved the children. “The evidence is credible that Marte [Defendant] pushed Pavane [Plaintiff] from his bicycle in order to prevent children from getting injured.”

Application of the Sudden Emergency Doctrine is a balancing test to some extent. The harm created by the negligent act is less than the harm that would have occurred if the defendant had not acted. 99% of the time only a jury will make the decision, whether your actions where worth it.

As a further little hit, the court held “It is the finding of this Court that Mr. Pavane’s own failure to stop at the red light and yield to children crossing the street was the sole proximate cause of the incident.”

So Now What?

The sad thing is the program had so much experience with cyclist’s running lights; they had developed a program to deal with it.

Cyclists of New York, you should be embarrassed!

The classic case of where the Sudden Emergency Doctrine would work is portrayed in “Touching the Void” by Joe Simpson.

Do not rely on the sudden emergency doctrine as a defense in your program or activity.

Plaintiff: Martin Pavane and Merrill Pavane

Defendant: Samidra Marte, Oasis Community Corporation and Oasis Children’s Services

Plaintiff Claims: Negligence

Defendant Defenses: Sudden Emergency Doctrine

Holding: For the Defendant

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FaceBook, Twitter or LinkedIn

Email: Rec-law@recreation-law.com

Google+: +Recreation

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

By Recreation Law Rec-law@recreation-law.com James H. Moss #Authorrank

<rel=”author” link=” https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/112453188060350225356/” />

#RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #Ski.Law, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Outdoor Law, #Recreation Law, #Outdoor Recreation Law, #Adventure Travel Law, #law, #Travel Law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #Attorney at Law, #Tourism, #Adventure Tourism, #Rec-Law, #Rec-Law Blog, #Recreation Law, #Recreation Law Blog, #Risk Management, #Human Powered, #Human Powered Recreation,# Cycling Law, #Bicycling Law, #Fitness Law, #Recreation-Law.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #Ice Climbing, #Rock Climbing, #Ropes Course, #Challenge Course, #Summer Camp, #Camps, #Youth Camps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, #RecreationLaw, #@RecreationLaw, #Cycling.Law #Fitness.Law, #SkiLaw, #Outside.Law, #Recreation.Law, #RecreationLaw.com, #OutdoorLaw, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #AdventureTravelLaw, #Law, #TravelLaw, #JimMoss, #JamesHMoss, #AttorneyatLaw, #Tourism, #AdventureTourism, #RecLaw, #RecLawBlog, #RecreationLawBlog, #RiskManagement, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation,# CyclingLaw, #BicyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #RecreationLaw.com, #Backpacking, #Hiking, #Mountaineering, #IceClimbing, #RockClimbing, #RopesCourse, #ChallengeCourse, #SummerCamp, #Camps, #YouthCamps, #Skiing, #Ski Areas, #Negligence, #Snowboarding, sport and recreation laws, ski law, cycling law, Colorado law, law for recreation and sport managers, bicycling and the law, cycling and the law, ski helmet law, skiers code, skiing accidents, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, Recreational Lawyer, Fitness Lawyer, Rec Lawyer, Challenge Course Lawyer, Ropes Course Lawyer, Zip Line Lawyer, Rock Climbing Lawyer, Adventure Travel Lawyer, Outside Lawyer, Recreation Lawyer, Ski Lawyer, Paddlesports Lawyer, Cycling Lawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #FitnessLawyer, #RecLawyer, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #RopesCourseLawyer, #ZipLineLawyer, #RockClimbingLawyer, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #OutsideLawyer,Oasis Children’s Services, Summer Enrichment program, Summer Camp, Day Camp, Cyclists, NY, New York City, Central Park,

WordPress Tags: Pavane,Marte,Misc,LEXIS,Slip,Martin,Merrill,Plaintiff,Samidra,Oasis,Corporation,Children,Services,Defendant,SUPREME,COURT,YORK,KINGS,August,NOTICE,OPINION,OFFICIAL,REPORTS,TERMS,judgment,bicycle,street,counselor,doctrine,fact,situation,deliberation,HEADNOTES,Negligence,Emergency,JUDGES,Bernard,Graham,Justice,Decision,lawsuit,complaint,December,plaintiffs,defendants,Samira,action,Central,Park,CPLR,dismissal,Background,enrichment,area,locations,Rachel,Carrion,campers,West,Drive,testimony,sidewalk,guidelines,Richard,Thompson,McKay,supervisor,protocol,counselors,Rodney,Gould,person,path,moment,Discussion,opposition,knowledge,existence,Bello,Transit,Auth,Dept,Here,descriptions,actor,circumstance,context,Caristo,Rivera,Marks,Robb,response,jury,Koenig,Vitale,Levine,determination,Although,Rotuba,Extruders,Ceppos,Sillman,Twentieth,Century,Film,Corp,assertions,example,Leon,Sager,woman,teens,Branham,Loews,Orpheum,Cinemas,conclusion,tort,consequences,intersection,injury,Where,accident,Goff,Goudreau,failure,incident,CountyBottom,Form,crosswalk,triable,cyclist,pursuant,whether

About these ads

Pavane v. Marte, 37 Misc. 3d 1216A; 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5128; 2012 NY Slip Op 52060U

Posted: May 6, 2013 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Camp for Minors, Cycling, Legal Case, New York | Tags: Central Park, Cyclists, Day Camp, Metro Areas, New York, New York City, NY, Oasis Children's Services, Plaintiff, Summary judgment, summer camp, Summer Enrichment program | Leave a comment »

Pavane v. Marte, 37 Misc. 3d 1216A; 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5128; 2012 NY Slip Op 52060U

Martin Pavane and Merrill Pavane, Plaintiff(s), against Samidra Marte, Oasis Community Corporation and Oasis Children’s Services, Defendant(s).

33473/08

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, KINGS COUNTY

37 Misc. 3d 1216A; 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5128; 2012 NY Slip Op 52060U

August 9, 2012, Decided

NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE PRINTED OFFICIAL REPORTS.

CORE TERMS: summary judgment, bicycle, street, crossing, counselor, emergency, crosswalk, walk, emergency doctrine, triable issues of fact, stop sign, deposition, cyclist, annexed, proximate cause, red light, matter of law, emergency situation, party opposing, affirmative defense, traffic light, reasonableness, deliberation, speculative, unexpected, proceeded, favorable, surprise, sudden, pushed

HEADNOTES

[*1216A] Negligence–Emergency Doctrine.

JUDGES: [**1] Hon. Bernard J. Graham, Acting Justice.

OPINION BY: Bernard J. Graham

OPINION

Bernard J. Graham, J.

Decision:

The captioned lawsuit was commenced by filing of a summons and complaint on or about December 8, 2008, by plaintiffs, Martin Pavane and Merrill Pavane, against defendants Samira Marte (incorrectly identified as “Samidra Marte”), Oasis Community Corporation, and Oasis Children’s Services, LLC. Plaintiffs’ claim is a negligence action against defendants stemming from a fall at Central Park and a derivative claim on behalf of plaintiff, Merrill Pavane.

Defendants move for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3212 for dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint alleging that there are no triable issues of fact and that defendants are free from liability pursuant to the Emergency Doctrine’.

Background

Defendant Oasis Children’s Services, LLC (“Oasis”) is a company that runs summer enrichment programs for at-risk children in the tri-state area. They have several camp locations in New York City, including one in Central Park.

Defendant Oasis Community Corporation is a named defendant which is ostensibly related to Oasis Children’s Services, LLC.

During the summer of 2008, Oasis hired 18-year-old defendant Samira Marte [**2] (“Marte”) as a camp counselor. On August 22, 2008, Marte and another counselor, Rachel Carrion (“Carrion”), entered Central Park at 96th Street with their campers to reach a swimming pool at 110th Street. Their route required them to cross West Drive.

According to the deposition testimony of Ms. Marte, Rachel Carrion and several children crossed West Drive first. The walk signal changed to “do not walk” before Ms. Marte was able to cross with the rest of the group, so she stayed on the sidewalk with the children to wait for the light to change again. When the signal changed to “walk”, Ms. Marte followed camp guidelines and proceeded to the middle of the crosswalk to hold up her “stop/children crossing” sign. According to the deposition of Richard Thompson McKay, who is an Oasis supervisor and not a named party to the action, Oasis provided protocol training for all camp counselors on how to cross the street. Counselors are instructed to stand in the middle of the street with the stop sign before children may begin to pass. Counselors were also told that if it appears that a cyclist will not stop, then the counselors must first be “loud and verbal” and ask the cyclist to stop. If the [**3] cyclist still does not stop, then counselors must “put [their] body as best as [they] can in between bicyclist and the children that [they] have to protect.” (See Dep. of Richard Thompson McKay, pg. 11-12, annexed as Ex. “H” to the Aff. of Rodney E. Gould in support of motion for summary judgment).

Ms. Marte states that several bicyclists were traveling down West Drive and that all of them stopped for the red light except for “one person that kept going.” (See Dep. of Samira Marte, pg. 60-61, 73-74, annexed as Ex. “F” to the Aff. of Rodney E. Gould in support of motion for summary judgment). Ms. Marte observed the defendant, Martin Pavane (“Pavane”), approaching the red light on his bicycle and alleges that Mr. Pavane did not slow down. Since children were beginning to cross the street, Ms. Marte anticipated that the bicycle would collide with the crossing children and herself. In order to get Mr. Pavane to stop, Ms. Marte first waived her stop sign and yelled for him to stop. When the bicycle still did not stop or slow down, she tried to put herself in between the bicycle and the children by standing in front of the bicycle’s [***2] path. However, Ms. Marte was forced to move aside because [**4] she states that the bicycle was going too fast. She was afraid that the bicycle would run right into her and the children. Ms. Marte states that was the moment she decided to push Mr. Pavane’s arm with the stop sign (Marte Dep. pg. 74-77).

Discussion

In opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs argue that the defendants failed to include the Emergency Doctrine’ as an affirmative defense in their answer.

However, where the party opposing summary judgment has knowledge of the facts relating to the existence of an emergency and would not be taken by surprise with the use of the emergency defense, the doctrine does not have to be pleaded as an affirmative defense (see Bello v. Transit Auth. of NY City, 12 AD3d 58, 61, 783 N.Y.S.2d 648 (2nd Dept. 2004)). Here, plaintiffs cannot claim that they were taken by surprise by defendants’ emergency defense. The depositions provide full descriptions of facts describing an emergency situation.

A common law emergency doctrine is recognized in New York and it applies “when an actor is faced with a sudden and unexpected circumstance that leaves little or no time for thought, deliberation or consideration, or causes the actor to be reasonably so [**5] disturbed that the actor must make a speedy decision without weighing alternative courses of conduct. [The] actor may not be negligent if the actions taken are reasonable and prudent in the emergency context”. (Caristo v. Sanzone, 96 NY2d 172, 174, 750 N.E.2d 36, 726 N.Y.S.2d 334 (2001) (citing Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 77 NY2d 322, 327, 569 N.E.2d 432, 567 N.Y.S.2d 629 (1991); see also Marks v. Robb, 90 AD3d 863, 935 N.Y.S.2d 593 (2nd Dept. 2011)). The depositions show that Marte was confronted with a sudden and unexpected emergency circumstance that left her with little time for deliberation. The evidence is credible that Marte pushed Pavane from his bicycle in order to prevent children from getting injured.

Ordinarily, the reasonableness of a party’s response to an emergency situation will present questions of fact for a jury, but it may be determined as a matter of law in appropriate circumstances (Bello v. Transit Auth. of NY City, 12 AD3d at 60; see also Koenig v. Lee, 53 AD3d 567, 862 N.Y.S.2d 373 (2nd Dept. 2008); Vitale v. Levine, 44 AD3d 935, 844 N.Y.S.2d 105 (2nd Dept. 2007)).

In this case, defendants seek an award of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim which would require a determination by this Court that, as a matter of law, the actions taken by Ms. Marte were reasonable [**6] and did not present a question which should be presented to a jury. Although summary judgment is a drastic remedy, a court may grant summary judgment when the moving party establishes that there are no triable issues of material fact (see Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223, 385 N.E.2d 1068, 413 N.Y.S.2d 141 (1978); Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 144 N.E.2d 387, 165 N.Y.S.2d 498 (1957)).

Rachel Carrion, the co-counselor who is not a named party to the action, testified that she saw Pavane ride his bicycle towards the crosswalk where herself and Marte were crossing the street with children from the Oasis summer camp (see Carrion Dep. pg. 8-9 annexed to Gould [***3] Aff. in support of motion for summary judgment). Carrion testified that Pavane was approaching them “at [a] speed” and “would not stop” (Carrion Dep. pg. 10). The testimony of Ms. Carrion is completely consistent and corroborative of Ms. Marte’s testimony. Ms. Marte stated that Mr. Pavane was not going to stop and was about to hit the four children who were crossing in the crosswalk (Marte Dep. pg 61).

The majority of Pavane’s testimony consists of mere speculative and conclusory assertions because he claims to not recall most details. For example, Pavane did not recall [**7] whether he saw children on the street (see Pavane Dep. pg. 17, annexed to the Aff of Leon Sager in opposition to the motion for summary judgment), but states that “it’s certainly possible there were people there.” (Pavane Dep. pg. 17). Carrion testified that there definitely were children on both sides of the crosswalk and some crossing in the middle before Marte pushed Pavane off his bicycle (Carrion Dep. pg. 11). Pavane also does not recall whether Marte was holding a “stop, children crossing” sign or whether she was waving at him, but he does remember Marte being a young woman in her teens (Pavane Dep. Pg. 17), who was “doing something with her hands at the particular time when she stepped in front of [him]” (Pavane Dep. pg. 18).

In reviewing the offered testimony in support of the motion and the opposition to the motion, the evidence submitted must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion (see Branham v. Loews Orpheum Cinemas, Inc., 8 NY3d 931, 866 N.E.2d 448, 834 N.Y.S.2d 503 (2007)). Even assessing the available evidence in a light most favorable to Mr. Pavane, a neutral reading of the evidence would support a conclusion that Ms. Marte and the children were crossing the street with [**8] the “walk” sign in their favor; that Ms. Marte was positioned with her stop sign at the cross walk; and that Mr. Pavane was cycling into the crosswalk against the traffic light.

While this Court is hesitant to declare the actions of any party in an alleged tort claim to be reasonable as a matter of law, in certain cases, such as this, summary judgment may be appropriate. (see Bello v. Transit Auth. of NY City, 12 AD3d 58, 783 N.Y.S.2d 648 (2004). The actions of the defendant, Marte, must be considered reasonable given the emergency she faced and the potentially harmful consequences to the children she was protecting. It is also apparent that Mr. Pavane proceeded into the intersection against the traffic light and, would fairly be considered to be the proximate cause of his injury. Where it is clear that the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident, plaintiff’s mere speculative assertions that defendant may have failed to act properly is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat a summary judgment motion. (see Goff v. Goudreau, 222 AD2d 650, 650, 635 N.Y.S.2d 699 (2nd Dept. 1995); Vitale v. Levine, 44 AD3d 935, 844 N.Y.S.2d 105 (2nd Dept. 2007)).

Conclusion

It is the finding of this Court that Mr. Pavane’s [**9] own failure to stop at the red light and yield to children crossing the street was the sole proximate cause of the incident. The actions of the camp counselor, Ms. Marte, in the context of crossing the street with young children who she feared would be injured by the cyclist can only be considered reasonable and appropriate in the given circumstances. Mr. Pavane has not offered evidence which would raise a triable issue of fact as to the reasonableness of Ms. Marte’s actions and to subject the defendants here to the expenses of a trial on this matter would be exceedingly unjust.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted and the plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed.

This shall constitute the decision and order of this Court.

Dated: August 9, 2012

/s/

Hon. Bernard J. Graham, Acting Justice

Supreme Court, Kings CountyBottom of Form

Summer Camp, Zip line injury and confusing legal analysis in Washington

Posted: April 16, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Camp for Minors, Case Analysis, Washington, Zip Line | Tags: Defendant, Duty of care, Plaintiff, Ropes course, Summary judgment, summer camp, zip line, Zip-line, Zipline | Leave a comment »

A 200′ Mammoth Deluxe zip line installed over a pond. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Oldja v. Warm Beach Christian Camps and Conference Center, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1208; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67966

Facts, no prepared defense and the plaintiff will get to go to trial.

In this case, I think the parents of a child who was attending the summer camp opted to ride the camp zip line. The zip line had two ropes that attached the rider to the haul line. The adult plaintiff when getting ready to ride wrapped one rope around his fingers. When he launched, the rope tightened almost severing his fingers.

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. However, the analysis by the court did not read like the normal decisions on motions for summary judgment and started out by denying part of the plaintiff’s argument.

Summary of the case

The plaintiff argued the summer camp, landowner, owed him a duty of ordinary care. The court found this really did not apply to this case, and the duty was a duty to disclose rather than a duty of ordinary care. However, the court allowed this argument to proceed.

Under Washington’s law, the duty of ordinary care is defined as:

a) knows or has reason to know that the chattel is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied, and

b) has no reason to believe that those for whose use the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition, and

c) fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them of its dangerous condition or of the facts which make it likely to be dangerous.

The court then argued that the plaintiff was arguing the wrong legal issues because the plaintiff was arguing the plaintiff was a landowner; however, the injury did not occur on the land.

Because the injury the plaintiff received was based on the acts of the plaintiff, wrapping a rope around his hand, there was no violation of a duty by the defendant.

Plaintiff’s injury was the natural result of wrapping a rope around one’s hand and then suspending one’s body from that rope. This was not a latent or hidden condition that only defendant could know. Common sense of a capable adult is sufficient to inform a rider of this danger. Plaintiff admitted as much in his deposition:

Q. Did you know that if you wrapped the rope around your fingers, and then you put weight on the rope, that would tighten and cinch around your fingers?

A. The thought did not cross my mind.

Q. Okay. You didn’t think about that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. But if you had thought about it, you would have been able to figure that out, correct?

A. If someone asked me?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Because the plaintiff admitted that if he thought about it, he would have realized that his actions would injure his hand, the defendant did not owe him a greater duty than it had done.

The plaintiff then stretched with two additional causes or claims. The first was the defendant had violated a state statute because the zip line was not inspected by the state. However, the statute that the plaintiff tried to apply, the amusement ride statute, did not include zip lines in its definitions until after the plaintiff’s accident. The statute at the time the plaintiff was injured did not apply to zip lines.

The next argument is farther out there, and exponentially scarier. The plaintiff argued that a zip line should be classified as a common carrier. A common carrier under most state interpretations are airlines, trains, buses, etc. Those types of transportation, carriers for hire, where the customer pays to be moved from one place to the next owe their customers the highest degree of care. The transportation must be for the purpose of movement, not amusement. The scary part is a common carrier owes the highest degree of care to its customers.

This definition means that a common carrier is liable in most situations for any injury to its passengers.

However, the court did not find a zip line was a common carrier. Thankfully.

So Now What?

The obvious issue that was missed, was the camp should have been using a release. An adult is on the property having fun; an injury will occur.

A motion for summary judgment is used when the legal arguments against a claim are sufficient to eliminate that claim. In most cases, this ends the lawsuit as long as all claims are ruled in favor of the defendant. Here the one claim, no matter how sketchy is probably going to allow the plaintiff to recover some amount of money.

Based on the ruling, the plaintiff will get his day in court or be paid not to go to court. A slip when someone is loading a zip line, no release and a traumatic injury add up to a big lawsuit.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

blog@rec-law.us

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

WordPress Tags: Summer,Camp,injury,analysis,Washington,Oldja,Warm,Beach,Christian,Camps,Conference,Center,Supp,Dist,LEXIS,Facts,plaintiff,parents,rider,defendant,judgment,decisions,argument,Summary,landowner,Under,violation,Common,danger,Okay,Correct,statute,amusement,definitions,accident,carrier,interpretations,airlines,transportation,carriers,customer,customers,degree,purpose,definition,situations,passengers,arguments,lawsuit,Here,money,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Youth,Areas,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,Line,chattel

Oldja v.Warm Beach Christian Camps and Conference Center, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1208; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67966

Posted: April 16, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Camp for Minors, Legal Case, Washington, Zip Line | Tags: Camp, SEATTLE, summer camp, zip line | Leave a comment »

Oldja v.Warm Beach Christian Camps and Conference Center, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1208; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67966

Ted Oldja, Plaintiff, v. Warm Beach Christian Camps and Conference Center, Defendant.

CASE NO. C09-0122-JCC

United States District Court for the Western District of Washington

793 F. Supp. 2d 1208; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67966

June 24, 2011, Decided

June 24, 2011, Filed

COUNSEL: [**1] For Ted Oldja, Plaintiff: Kenneth R Friedman, LEAD ATTORNEY, FRIEDMAN RUBIN, BREMERTON, WA; Michael N White, FRIEDMAN RUBIN, (BREMERTON), BREMERTON, WA.

For Warm Beach Christian Camps and Conference Center, Defendant: David R Goodnight, Vanessa Soriano Power, STOEL RIVES (WA), SEATTLE, WA; Francis S Floyd, Nicholas L Jenkins, FLOYD PFLUEGER & RINGER PS, SEATTLE, WA.

JUDGES: John C. Coughenour, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

OPINION BY: John C. Coughenour

OPINION

[*1209] ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 49), Plaintiff’s response (Dkt. No. 53), and Defendant’s reply. (Dkt. No. 59.) Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained herein.

I. BACKGROUND

In the summer of 2007, Ted Oldja attended a camp at Warm Beach Christian Camp (“Warm Beach”) in Stanwood, Washington. Mr. and Mrs. Oldja decided to ride on the zip line operated by Warm Beach. The zip line carried riders in a harness suspended from a cable by two ropes: a white rope, which acts as the primary connection between the harness and the cable, and bears the load of the rider’s weight; and [**2] a black rope, which acts as a secondary connection between the harness and the cable, and can be used as a safety line to slow the rider down.

Before a user rides the zip line, it is the job of the launch facilitator to follow a safety procedure. First, the facilitator tells the rider that they can hold on to either the white and black ropes during the ride, or just the white rope. The facilitator instructs riders not to hold only the black secondary line, because it will slow them down or stop them completely. The facilitator then double-checks the harness configuration, pulley attachments, safety helmet, and carabiners. The launch facilitator calls “zip clear” to the landing facilitator to communicate that the rider is ready, and the landing facilitator responds “zip clear” to communicate that the path is clear for the rider.

After watching his wife on the ride, it was Mr. Oldja’s turn. The launch facilitator, Paul Matthewson, testified that he followed the proper safety procedures. (Dkt. No. 49 Ex. 2 at 51- 53.) Matthewson testified that he did not see Oldja wrap his fingers in the white primary rope, and that Oldja’s fingers were not wrapped in the rope when Matthewson cleared him [**3] to go. (Id. at 60.) Sometime after Matthewson called “zip clear,” Mr. Oldja, a mechanical engineer, wrapped his fingers in the white primary rope, and stepped off the platform. The load-bearing rope tightened [*1210] around his hand and crushed his fingers. Mr. Oldja was rushed to a hospital and has had several surgeries on his hand. Plaintiff filed suit against Warm Beach for negligence, product liability, and negligence per se under a variety of theories. Defendant now moves for summary judgment dismissal of all three of these claims. Plaintiff does not oppose summary judgment on the product liability claim.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

[HN1] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) mandates that a motion for summary judgment be granted when “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). There exists a genuine issue as to a particular fact–and hence that fact “can be resolved only by a finder of fact” at trial–when “[it] may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party”; conversely, there exists no genuine issue when reasonable [**4] minds could not differ as to the import of the evidence. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250-52, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). Whether a particular fact is material, in turn, is determined by the substantive law of the case: “Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Id. at 248. Summary judgment, then, demands an inquiry into “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law”; if applying the relevant law to those facts about which no two reasonable factfinders could disagree dictates that the moving party must prevail, then a motion for summary judgment must be granted. Id. at 250-52.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Duty of Ordinary Care

Plaintiff argues that it is well established that every business has a duty to use ordinary care in keeping its premises reasonably safe for use by business invitees. (Dkt. No. 53 at 10.) Defendant argues that Section 388 of the Second Restatement of Torts should govern the analysis. [**5] The Court addresses Section 388 below, but Section 388 governs only the duty to disclose and does not govern the duty of ordinary care. Defendant has not shown an absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to its alleged breach of the duty of ordinary care. Accordingly, summary judgment dismissal of this claim is denied.

B. Duty to Disclose

[HN2] With reference to a duty to disclose, The Supreme Court of Washington has adopted Section 388 of the Second Restatement of Torts, which states that the supplier is liable if he:

a) knows or has reason to know that the chattel is or is likely to be dangerous for the use for which it is supplied, and

b) has no reason to believe that those for whose use the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition, and

c) fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them of its dangerous condition or of the facts which make it likely to be dangerous.

Fleming v. Stoddard Wendle Motor Co., 70 Wn.2d 465, 423 P.2d 926, 928 (Wash. 1967).

Plaintiff argues that he is choosing not to pursue his claims under Section 388. Rather, Plaintiff argues that the Court [*1211] should consider Section 343A, which creates a duty to protect invitees from known or obvious dangers when the [**6] landowner should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge and obviousness.

Plaintiff is misguided. [HN3] He may choose the claims he brings, but he cannot choose the standard the Court will apply to those claims. Section 343 governs liability for an activity or condition on the land. Section 388 governs liability for use of a chattel. “Chattel” means movable or transferable property. Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). Defendant argues that the zip line is movable property, and Plaintiff does not challenge this characterization. The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s injury was caused by equipment on the land, not the land itself. Accordingly, Section 388 governs Plaintiff’s claims. Lunt v. Mt. Spokane Skiing Corp., 62 Wn. App. 353, 814 P.2d 1189, 1192 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991) (where injury arises from equipment not land, Section 388 not Section 343 governs).

[HN4] Each of the three criteria in Section 388 must be satisfied. The Court will begin with consideration of the second criterion. To prevail on this element at the summary judgment phase, Plaintiff must show some evidence that Defendant had no reason to believe that riders of the zip line would realize the dangerous condition. This is a dense piece of legal language, [**7] so an illustration is helpful.

In Fleming v. Stoddard Wendle Motor Co., 70 Wn.2d 465, 423 P.2d 926 (Wash. 1967), a man disabled a safety feature on a truck that was designed to prevent the motor from starting if the car was in gear. He sold the truck to a mechanic and did not disclose that the safety feature had been disabled. When the purchaser started the truck, it lurched forward, striking and injuring the plaintiff. The Supreme Court of Washington noted that the man who had sold the car had no reason to believe that any future operator of the car would know that the safety feature had been disabled. Id. at 928. Because the seller had no reason to believe the defect would be discovered, he had a duty to warn of that defect. The defect was latent and no amount of common sense or automotive knowledge could inform a driver about that particular hazard. Dismissal of the seller was reversed.

In contrast, Mele v. Turner, 106 Wn.2d 73, 720 P.2d 787 (Wash. 1986) concerns a case where a young man borrowed a lawn mower from his neighbors, inserted his hand into the mower housing to clean out some wet grass, and injured four fingers. The young man admitted in an affidavit: “I obviously realized that one should not put [**8] his hand under the machine where the blade runs . . . .” Id. at 790. The Court held that because the dangerous condition was obvious and known, defendants had no legal duty to warn. Id. There was nothing latent about the defect, and common sense would inform the user of the hazard.

The present case is much closer to Mele than Fleming. Plaintiff’s injury was the natural result of wrapping a rope around one’s hand and then suspending one’s body from that rope. This was not a latent or hidden condition that only Defendant could know. Common sense of a capable adult is sufficient to inform a rider of this danger. Plaintiff admitted as much in his deposition:

Q. Did you know that if you wrapped the rope around your fingers and then you put weight on the rope, that that would tighten and cinch around your fingers?

A. The thought did not cross my mind.

Q. Okay. You didn’t think about that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. But if you had thought about it, you would have been able to figure that out, correct?

[*1212] A. If someone asked me?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

(Dkt. No. 50 at Ex. A 196:14-197:1.) Given Plaintiff’s admission that he would have realized the danger if he had thought about it, Plaintiff cannot credibly argue [**9] that Defendant had no reason to believe that he would realize the danger.

The only evidence Plaintiff offers on this point is the testimony of Dr. Richard Gill, a Human Factors Engineering consultant. Dr. Gill was disclosed as a rebuttal expert, and testified that the scope of his work was to provide rebuttal testimony to the three defense experts. (Dkt. No. 60 at Ex. 1, Ex 2 16:8-9.) Dr. Gill’s expert report provides a series of conclusions about the behavior of zip line riders that does not rebut any of the testimony of Defendant’s experts. Rather, this type of testimony should have been disclosed in the initial expert discovery responses and is therefore untimely. Accordingly, Dr. Gill’s testimony regarding the behavioral tendencies of zip line or challenge course participants is STRICKEN. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Defendant’s liability under Section 388.

C. Liability for violation of state regulations

Plaintiff’s next argument is that Defendant was negligent pursuant to RCW 5.40.050 for violation of a state statute. [HN5] WAC 296-403A-190 states that amusement rides must be inspected by certified inspectors. RCW 67.42.010 and [**10] WAC 296-403A-100(2) provide the definition of amusement rides, but do not mention zip lines. Plaintiff argues that these definitions do include zip lines, and relies on a series of communications with the State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries (“L&I”) in 2009 and 2010 in support of this contention. (Dkt. No. 50 at Ex. 11.)

The Court interprets these communications very differently from Plaintiff. It is clear from these emails that the decision to include zip lines in the definition of “amusement ride” under WAC 296-403A-100(2) was not made until late 2009 or early 2010, more than two years after Plaintiff injured his hand on Defendant’s zip line. (Dkt. No. 50 at Ex. 11.) Plaintiff does not address this chronology in his briefing. It is misleading in the extreme for Plaintiff to characterize Defendant’s zip line as “unlicensed” when the licensing body had not yet decided that a license was required. Plaintiff has failed to show a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Defendant’s failure to comply with licensing requirements.

D. Common Carrier Liability

Plaintiff’s third argument is that Defendant is subject to common carrier liability. [HN6] Under Washington law, the duty [**11] of a common carrier to safeguard passengers from injury requires the carrier to exercise the highest degree of care consistent with the practical operation of its business or its type of transportation. Benjamin v. Seattle, 74 Wn.2d 832, 447 P.2d 172 (1968). Plaintiff acknowledges that there is no Washington caselaw addressing the issue of whether a zip line qualifies as a “common carrier,” but argues that this Court should expand the definition to include zip lines and similar amusement rides. In support of this argument, Plaintiff mentions a series of California decisions holding that a higher standard of care applies to amusement rides. Gomez v. Superior Court, 35 Cal. 4th 1125, 29 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352, 113 P.3d 41, 47 (Cal. 2005) (holding that the same high standard of care applied to carriers of passengers should also apply to operators of roller [*1213] coasters); Neubauer v. Disneyland, 875 F. Supp. 672, 673 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (holding that under California’s broad common carrier statute, a Disneyland amusement ride may be a common carrier).

This argument stumbles into the yawning gap between the Washington and California common-carrier statutes. [HN7] California’s common carrier statute is broad: Everyone who offers to the public to carry persons, [**12] property, or messages, excepting only telegraphic messages, is a common carrier of whatever he thus offers to carry. Cal Civ Code § 2168. Washington’s common carrier statute is narrow and exhaustive:

“Common carrier” includes all railroads, railroad companies, street railroads, street railroad companies, commercial ferries, motor freight carriers, auto transportation companies, charter party carriers and excursion service carriers, private nonprofit transportation providers, solid waste collection companies, household goods carriers, hazardous liquid pipeline companies, and every corporation, company, association, joint stock association, partnership, and person, their lessees, trustees, or receivers appointed by any court whatsoever, and every city or town, owning, operating, managing, or controlling any such agency for public use in the conveyance of persons or property for hire within this state.

RCW 81.04.010(11). Plaintiff offers no argument or evidence for the proposition that this definition includes a zip line. Again, Plaintiff has failed to show a genuine issue of material fact with respect to Defendant’s liability as an alleged common carrier.

IV. CONCLUSION

Defendant’s motion [**13] for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 49) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff’s claims for breach of the duty of ordinary care survive summary judgment. Plaintiff’s claims for breach of the duty to disclose, claims relating to the violation of the WAC, and claims relating to common carrier liability are DISMISSED.

DATED this 24th day of June 2011.

/s/ John C. Coughenour

John C. Coughenour

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Information, Education and knowledge prevent a mother from suing a camp and the Girl Scouts

Posted: February 20, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Camp for Minors, Case Analysis, Mississippi | Tags: Bedroom, Bunk bed, Cabin, Camp, Child, Girl Scouts, Girl Scouts of America, Recreation, summer camp | Leave a comment »

Buck, v. Camp Wilkes, Inc. 906 So. 2d 778; 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 1141

Besides top bunk of a bunk bed is just not a dangerous instrumentality.

The mother of a thirteen-year old girl sued the Girl Scouts of Gulf Pine Council, Inc., the troop leader of her daughter’s unit and the camp when the girl fell off the top bunk of a bunk bed injuring her. The basis of the suit was the defendant’s actions caused or contributed to the thirteen-year olds fall. After the defendants were dismissed on summary judgment by the trial court the mother appealed claiming the lower court failed to determine the following:

(1) in failing to follow existing standards in granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, (2) in finding no merit to Buck’s argument that a causal relationship existed between Boozer’s temporary absence at the time of the accident and Jamie’s falling from the bed, and in applying the wrong standard when considering Boozer and the Girl Scouts’s lack of supervision, and (3) in ruling as a matter of law that a bunk bed is not a dangerous instrumentality and that Appellees‘ use of bunk beds did not amount to a failure on their part to use reasonable care in providing Jamie a reasonably safe place to sleep.

The entire case revolved around what did the injured girl’s mother know?

The mother took her daughter to camp and helped set up her bed the first night. The second night the group moved to another cabin because the first cabin did not have a working refrigerator. The mother was not there for the move or the remaining nights. The girls decided to sleep on the top bunks, even though lower bunks were available.

The second night after the move the third night in total, the thirteen-year old rolled off the bunk and fell suffering injuries.

So?

The first argument was dismissed because there was no legal (causal) relationship between the defendant leader leaving for an errand and the girl falling out of the bunk. No supervision when the girl fell would have prevented her from falling.

The plaintiff then argued, as part of the first appeal argument that the girls should not have been allowed to sleep on the top bunk. However, the court found the plaintiff presented no evidence that bunk beds or sleeping on the top bunk by thirteen-year old girls were dangerous.

The court then looked at whether bunk beds were a dangerous instrumentality. This means that in and of themselves, bunk beds are dangerous. Guns are probably the best example of a dangerous instrumentality. However, the court found that there was no evidence the beds where dangerous on their face. The mother during her deposition testified that she knew her daughter might be sleeping on a bunk bed, expressed no concerns about that fact and did not inform anyone that she did not want her daughter sleeping on the bed.

The court referred to a New York decision that held that an innkeeper is not responsible for the beds, when the parent is the one who chooses whether or not their child can sleep in it.

Finally, the court looked at the failure to warn issue. A land owner owes a duty of care to someone on the land based on the relationship between the land owner and the person. Here, the thirteen-year old was an invitee. A landowner’s duty to an invitee is “exercising reasonable care to keep its premise’s safe, or to warn Jamie [the injured girl] of any hidden or concealed perils of which it knew, or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable care.”

Here again the court had no evidence in front of it showing that bunk beds were dangerous so that the landowner, the camp, needed to inform the mother of the dangers.

So Now What?

What stands out in this case is the fact the mother, and probably the daughter, knew what the daughter was going to do and did not stop those acts. If a parent and a child know and understand what the risk of the activity is, then it is difficult for them to prove that the risks were dangerous. If the risks were dangerous, then why didn’t the mother inform the daughter or the troop leader that she did not want her daughter participating in the particular risks?

Here, the proof came out in a deposition. However, I believe that is relying on luck to hope that discovery will save your case. Better to point out all the risks of the activity to the parents and children and be able to prove that you did point them out.

There are two ways of doing that. The first is to put the risks in a release and have the parents sign the release. This works for single day activities were the risks can be easily identified…..to some extent.

Better to put everything you can on your website. A movie of the cabins showing bunk beds would have also proven the points to the parents and the court. If each cabin is different have the parents look at the cabins that their child is staying in. Always point out that cabins are different and some have other features and numerate the risks.

Do the same with the dining hall, health club, paths and all buildings and activity areas. Give the parents every opportunity to experience the camp without leaving their computer. No matter what you show it will help sell the camp and keep parents informed of the risks.

Proving the parent watched the videos is easy. On all of your literature tell the parents to go to the website and look around. On the release, have the parents agree that they did go to the website and look around.

If you think, the videos are difficult to do, then don’t. Turn it into a project and have the kids make them!

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

blog@rec-law.us

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog:www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

WordPress Tags: Information,Education,knowledge,Girl,Scouts,Buck,Camp,Wilkes,Miss,LEXIS,Besides,bunk,Gulf,Pine,Council,leader,daughter,unit,basis,defendant,defendants,judgment,argument,relationship,Boozer,absence,accident,Jamie,supervision,Appellees,beds,failure,cabin,refrigerator,nights,girls,bunks,injuries,errand,plaintiff,Guns,example,fact,York,decision,innkeeper,owner,person,Here,landowner,premise,perils,dangers,luck,discovery,Better,parents,extent,movie,cabins,hall,health,paths,buildings,areas,Give,computer,literature,Turn,Leave,Twitter,LinkedIn,Recreation,Edit,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Attorney,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Camps,Youth,Negligence,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,Colorado,managers,helmet,accidents,whether,invitee,website

Buck, v. Camp Wilkes, Inc. 906 So. 2d 778; 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 1141

Posted: February 20, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Camp for Minors, Legal Case | Tags: Appeal, Appellant, Bunk bed, Cabin, Camp, Girl Scouts, Girl Scouts of America, Law, MISSISSIPPI, Summary judgment, United States district court | Leave a comment »

Buck, v. Camp Wilkes, Inc. 906 So. 2d 778; 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 1141

Debbie Buck, as mother and natural guardian of Jamie Buck, Appellant, v. Camp Wilkes, Inc.; Girl Scouts of Gulf Pines Council, Inc.; and Deborah Boozer, Appellees.

NO. 2003-CA-01065-COA

COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI

906 So. 2d 778; 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 1141

December 14, 2004, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HARRISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. DATE OF TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT: 4/17/2003. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JERRY O. TERRY, SR. TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: TRIAL JUDGE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS DEBORAH BOOZER AND GIRL SCOUTS OF GULF PINES COUNCIL, INC. AND DISMISSED APPELLANTS’ CLAIM WITH PREJUDICE.

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.

CASE SUMMARY:

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff mother filed a personal injury action on behalf of her daughter against defendants, a local Girl Scouts council and its troop leader, for injuries sustained when the daughter fell out of a bunk bed at scout camp. The Harrison County Circuit Court, Mississippi, granted defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment. The mother appealed as to the issues of a causal relationship and defendants’ failure to supervise.

OVERVIEW: The mother asserted the trial court erred in finding that there was no causal relationship where the troop leader left the children in a cabin with an assistant troop leader when they went to bed for the night. She also argued that the troop leader and the council failed to properly supervise the situation by not requiring the children to sleep on the bottom bunks, or on bunk beds with side rail protectors. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the mother did not produce any evidence to indicate negligence. Further, the mother presented no authority to substantiate her claim that the girls should not have been allowed to sleep on the beds without guard rails, or should have been made to sleep on bottom bunks. The appellate court also rejected the mother’s lawyer’s assertion that a bunk bed being used by a 13-year old without guard rails was a dangerous instrumentality, or that the council failed to warn the child of a dangerous condition which it knew, or should have known, existed on their premises.

OUTCOME: The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

CORE TERMS: bunk bed, bed, summary judgment, girls, sleep, guard, bunk, dangerous instrumentality, genuine, troop, top, issue of material fact, daughter, matter of law, troop leader, use reasonable care, safe place, sleeping, cabin, failed to demonstrate, moving party, record reveals, negligence per se, contributed, evidentiary, deposition, favorable, producing, concealed, leader

LexisNexis(R) Headnotes

Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Motions for Summary Judgment > General Overview

Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Standards > Appropriateness

Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Standards > Genuine Disputes

[HN1] A summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(c). All that is required of an opposing party to survive a motion for summary judgment is to establish a genuine issue of material fact by the means available under Miss. R. Civ. P. 56.

Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Appellate Review > Standards of Review

Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Standards > General Overview

Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > De Novo Review

[HN2] In determining whether the entry of summary judgment is appropriate, the appellate court reviews the judgment de novo, making its own determination on the motion, separate and apart from that of the trial court. The evidentiary matters are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. If after this examination, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then summary judgment is affirmed, but if after examining the evidentiary matters there is a genuine issue of material fact, the grant of summary judgment is reversed.

Evidence > Procedural Considerations > Burdens of Proof > General Overview

Torts > Negligence > Proof > Elements

[HN3] In a negligence action, the plaintiff bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a duty, breach, proximate causation, and damages.

Torts > Negligence > General Overview

[HN4] The Court of Appeals of Mississippi is not prepared to say that a bunk bed being used by a teenager without guard rails is a dangerous instrumentality.

Torts > Negligence > Duty > General Overview

Torts > Negligence > Standards of Care > Reasonable Care > General Overview

Torts > Premises Liability & Property > General Premises Liability > Duties of Care > Duty on Premises > Invitees > General Overview

[HN5] A premises owner owes an invitee a duty of exercising reasonable care to keep its premises safe, or to warn an invitee of any hidden or concealed perils of which it know, or should know, in the exercise of reasonable care.

Civil Procedure > Appeals > Briefs

Civil Procedure > Appeals > Standards of Review > General Overview

[HN6] Issues cannot be decided based on assertions from the briefs alone. Similarly, a failure to cite legal authority in support of a proposition precludes the appellate court from considering an issue on appeal.

COUNSEL: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: JAMES CLAYTON GARDNER, DAVID C. FRAZIER, and WILLIAM L. DENTON.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: DORRANCE DEE AULTMAN, ROGER T. CLARK, PATRICK R. BUCHANAN, KIMBERLY DAWN SAUCIER ROSETTI, and SAMUEL TRENT FAVRE.

JUDGES: BEFORE KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., AND IRVING, J. KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR. MYERS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.

OPINION BY: IRVING

OPINION

[*779] NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL – PERSONAL INJURY

IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:

P1. Debbie Buck filed a personal injury action on behalf of her minor daughter, Jamie, against Camp Wilkes, Girl Scouts of Gulf Pine Council, Inc., and troop leader Deborah Boozer, for injuries sustained when the child fell out of a bunk bed at camp. In her complaint, Buck alleged that the defendants’ negligent conduct caused Jamie to sustain multiple damages. [**2] In response, Boozer filed a motion for summary judgment, and Girl Scouts filed a joinder, adopting Boozer’s motion. On April 17, 2003, after a hearing on the matter, the trial judge granted Boozer and Girl Scouts’s motion and found that Buck failed to show that the defendants’ actions caused or contributed to Jamie’s fall. On May 14, Buck filed a notice of appeal of the judge’s grant of Boozer and Girl Scouts’s motion.

P2. On May 28, Camp Wilkes filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court entered a final judgment of dismissal, granting Camp Wilkes’s motion, and Buck again filed a notice of appeal. Buck’s first and second appeal were consolidated.

P3. In this appeal, Buck seeks review of whether the trial court committed reversible error (1) in failing to follow existing standards in granting the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, (2) in finding no merit to Buck’s argument that a causal relationship existed between Boozer’s temporary absence at the time of the accident and Jamie’s falling from the bed, and in applying the wrong standard when considering Boozer and the Girl Scouts’s lack of supervision, and (3) in ruling as a matter of law that a bunk bed is [**3] not a dangerous instrumentality and that Appellees’ use of bunk beds did not amount to a failure on their part to use reasonable care in providing Jamie a reasonably safe place to sleep.

[*780] P4. We find no reversible error; therefore, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Appellees.

FACTS

P5. In June 2000, thirteen-year-old Jamie Buck attended a Girl Scouts camping trip with her troop at Camp Wilkes. The chaperones for the trip were troop leader, Deborah Boozer, and assistant leader, Jenny White. Upon arriving at the camp, Jamie’s mother helped Jamie set up Jamie’s bed. ¹ The next day, however, the troop moved to another cabin because their refrigerator was not working. ² That night, all of the girls decided to sleep on the top bunks, and everyone, except Jamie, pulled their beds together to make a single bed. The following night, Jamie was asleep on the top bunk when she rolled out of her bed and sustained injuries to her face. Boozer was not present at the time of the accident because she had gone to retrieve supplies but had left the troop’s assistant leader with the girls while she was gone. Additional facts will be related during our discussion [**4] of the issues.

1 The camp furnished bunk beds for the girls to sleep on. The beds did not have any guard rails.

2 The second cabin had a similar layout as the first cabin and also had bunk beds for the girls to sleep on.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES

(1)Standard of Review

P6. Buck first contends that by granting the defendants’ summary judgment motions, the trial judge failed to view the facts and issues in the light most favorable to her.

P7. The law is well established with respect to the grant or denial of summary judgments. [HN1] A summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” M.R.C.P. 56(c). “All that is required of an opposing party to survive a motion for summary judgment is to establish a genuine issue of material fact by the means available under [**5] the rule.” Lowery v. Guaranty Bank and Trust Co., 592 So. 2d 79, 81 (Miss. 1991) (citing Galloway v. Travelers Ins. Co., 515 So. 2d 678, 682 (Miss. 1987)). [HN2] “In determining whether the entry of summary judgment [is] appropriate, [the appellate court] reviews the judgment de novo, making its own determination on the motion, separate and apart from that of the trial court.” Lowery, 592 So. 2d at 81. “The evidentiary matters are viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. “If after this examination, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, then summary judgment is affirmed, but if after examining the evidentiary matters there is a genuine issue of material fact, the grant of summary judgment is reversed.” Lowery, 592 So. 2d at 81 (citing Newell v. Hinton, 556 So. 2d 1037, 1041 (Miss. 1990)).

P8. A thorough examination of the record reveals that Buck failed to meet her burden of producing significant evidence to rebut the defendants’ showing that no genuine issue of material fact existed. Buck also produced [**6] no evidence to show that the defendants’ breached the established standard of care and that such breach was the cause of Jamie’s injuries. As a result, the trial judge appropriately granted the defendants’ summary judgment motions.

[*781] (2) Breach of Duty

P9. Buck argues that the trial court erred in finding that there was no causal relationship between Boozer’s temporary absence at the time of the accident and Jamie’s falling from the bed. Buck also argues that Boozer and Girl Scouts failed to properly supervise Jamie and the other minor children by not requiring the children to sleep on the bottom bunks, or at least, on bunk beds with side rail protectors. ³

3 Buck argues that the beds were donated by the U.S. Navy, and therefore the beds were designed for adults, not minors.

P10. [HN3] “In this negligence action, [Buck] bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to establish the existence of [a] duty, breach, proximate causation, and damages.” Simpson v. Boyd, 880 So. 2d 1047, 1050 [**7] (P 12) (Miss. 2004) (citing Palmer v. Anderson Infirmary Benevolent Ass’n, 656 So. 2d 790, 794 (Miss. 1995)).

P11. At the conclusion of the motion hearing, the trial judge found that Buck did not produce any evidence to indicate negligence by Boozer or Girl Scouts. We agree with the trial judge’s findings. However, assuming arguendo that Boozer was negligent in leaving the troop with the assistant troop leader, Buck has failed to demonstrate how Boozer’s absence contributed to Jamie’s injuries.

P12. Similarly, Buck has presented no authority that would substantiate her claim that the troop should not have been allowed to sleep on the beds without guard rails, or at least should have been made to sleep on the bottom bunks. Therefore, this argument is without merit.

(3) Dangerous Instrumentality

P13. Buck’s next allegation of error concerns the trial judge’s failure to find that a bunk bed constituted a dangerous instrumentality. The trial judge, relying on the New York case of Rueben v. Olympic Resort, Inc., 24 Misc. 2d 131, 198 N.Y.S. 2d 408 (N.Y. 1960), coupled with Buck’s lack of proof, found no merit in Buck’s contention [**8] that a bunk bed is a dangerous instrumentality. In Reuben, a six-year-old child was vacationing with her family at a hotel when she fell out of the top bunk and was injured. Id. at 409. The bunk bed had no guard rails. Id. Although the court denied the child’s parents recovery on other grounds, it commented that:

This Court is not prepared to state that a bunk bed without a guard rail is a dangerous instrumentality in and of itself. Such a bed, even with a guard rail, might be very dangerous to a child six months of age. Without a guard rail such a bed may be entirely safe for a child of fourteen years. It is for the parents of the child to determine what equipment is necessary or suitable for their own children. The hotel keeper cannot be presumed to know.

Id. at 409-10.

P14. We, like the trial judge and the Reuben court, [HN4] are not prepared to say that a bunk bed being used by a thirteen-year old without guard rails is a dangerous instrumentality. As noted by Camp Wilkes, Buck has failed to show any defect in the design of the bed or offered any evidence that the bed failed to comply with applicable standards, regulations, or guidelines. [**9] Buck even testified in a deposition that she knew what type bed her daughter was sleeping on and that she had no concerns about her daughter sleeping on the top bunk. Buck further stated that she did not inform anyone that she did not want her daughter sleeping on the top [*782] bunk. For the forgoing reasons, we find this issue to be without merit.

P15. Buck also argues that Camp Wilkes, by its use of bunk beds, failed to use reasonable care in providing a safe place for Jamie to sleep and also failed to adequately maintain and inspect its premises in a reasonably prudent manner. Buck further contends that Camp Wilkes failed to warn Jamie of a dangerous condition which the camp knew, or should have known, existed on their premises.

P16. [HN5] Camp Wilkes properly advances that it owed Jamie, as an invitee, the duty of exercising reasonable care to keep its premises safe, or to warn Jamie of any hidden or concealed perils of which it knew, or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable care. Lucas v. Buddy Jones Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc., 518 So. 2d 646, 648 (Miss. 1988) (citing Downs v. Corder, 377 So. 2d 603, 605 (Miss. 1979)). However, Camp [**10] Wilkes argues that a bunk bed is an item normally encountered on the business premises of camps like Camp Wilkes and that a bunk bed is not a hidden or concealed peril.

P17. We have already found that a bunk bed is not an inherently dangerous instrumentality. We now find that Buck has failed to demonstrate or show that the bunk bed in question was in any way defective. Therefore, we find no merit in Buck’s argument that Camp Wilkes, by its use of bunk beds, failed to use reasonable care in providing a safe place for Jamie to sleep.

P18. Finally, Buck asserts that the Appellees’ actions constituted negligence per se because Jamie was less than fourteen years old at the time of the accident. The record reveals that Buck failed to cite any case law in support of this proposition. [HN6] “Issues cannot be decided based on assertions from the briefs alone.” Pulphus v. State, 782 So. 2d 1220, 1224 (Miss. 2001) (P 15) (citing Robinson v. State, 662 So. 2d 1100, 1104 (Miss. 1995)). Similarly, a failure to cite legal authority in support of a proposition precludes this Court from considering the issue on appeal. Grey v. Grey, 638 So. 2d 488, 491 (Miss. 1994) [**11] (citing Matter of Estate of Mason v. Fort, 616 So. 2d 322, 327 (Miss. 1993)).

P19. However, notwithstanding Buck’s failure to supply any authority in support of her proposition that allowing a thirteen-year old to sleep in a bunk bed not equipped with guard rails constitutes negligence per se, we refuse to embrace such a proposition. Therefore, we affirm the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment to the Appellees.

P20. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HARRISON COUNTY IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.

KING, C.J., BRIDGES AND LEE, P.JJ., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR. MYERS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.

Bernstein v Wysoki et al., 77 A.D.3d 241; 907 N.Y.S.2d 49; 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6579; 2010 NY Slip Op 6475; 244 N.Y.L.J. 43

Posted: February 13, 2012 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Case Analysis, Camp for Minors, New York | Tags: summer camp, New York, Supreme Court, Motion (legal), Camp, Contract, LexisNexis, Forum selection clause, New York Supreme Court, New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Medical Malpractice | 1 Comment »

Bernstein v Wysoki et al., 77 A.D.3d 241; 907 N.Y.S.2d 49; 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6579; 2010 NY Slip Op 6475; 244 N.Y.L.J. 43

Jordan Bernstein, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Malka Bernstein, et al., Respondents, v Randee Wysoki et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Index No. 20686/07)

2008-06606, 2008-09740

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT

77 A.D.3d 241; 907 N.Y.S.2d 49; 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6579; 2010 NY Slip Op 6475; 244 N.Y.L.J. 43

August 24, 2010, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY: Appeals from orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas P. Phelan, J.), entered June 13, 2008 and September 30, 2008. The order entered June 13, 2008, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the cross motion of defendants Randee Wysoki, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell and Gregory Scagnelli to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on a forum selection clause. The order entered September 30, 2008, insofar as appealed from, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination and denied that branch of the cross motion of defendant Julie Higgins which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on the forum selection clause.

Bernstein v. Wysoki, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 10774 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 26, 2008)

Bernstein v. Wysoki, 2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 9483 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 10, 2008)

CASE SUMMARY:

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants, hospital doctors, camp doctor, and nurse, appealed an order by the Nassau County Supreme Court (New York) that, upon reargument, adhered to the original denial of their cross-motions to dismiss a medical malpractice action filed by plaintiffs, mother and child, based on CPLR 501.

OVERVIEW: The mother entered into a contract with defendant sponsor for her child to attend a summer camp in Pennsylvania. The contract gave the sponsor the authority in all medical matters, inter alia, to hospitalize and treat the child if necessary. The contract also provided that venue was in Pennsylvania. When the child developed a pain in his lower abdomen, he was initially treated by the camp doctor and then sent to a hospital where he was treated by the hospital doctors and nurse. Allegedly due to the failure of the defendants to timely recognize and properly care for and treat the child’s condition, he sustained various injuries. The appellate court found, inter alia, that the forum selection clause was valid. However, since nothing in the contract indicated that the sponsor intended to use the hospital doctors and nurse in particular in the event the child required “off-camp” medical services, they lacked a sufficiently close relationship with the sponsor such that their enforcement of the forum selection clause was foreseeable. However, because the camp doctor was the sponsor’s on-site medical employee, she could enforce the forum selection clause under § 501.

OUTCOME: The order was modified by deleting the provision thereof denying the camp doctor’s cross-motion to dismiss, and by substituting therefor a provision vacating that portion of the order; and as so modified, the order was affirmed.

CORE TERMS: forum selection clause, doctor, infant, venue, signatory, inter alia, foreseeable, reargument, sufficiently close, nonsignatory, summer camp, enforceable, assigns, camper, prima facie, action to recover damages, non-signatory, medical malpractice, hospitalize, deprived, practical purposes, applicability, overreaching, beneficiary, nonparty, modified, unjust, refund, summons, bind

LexisNexis(R) Headnotes

Contracts Law > Contract Conditions & Provisions > Forum Selection Clauses

Contracts Law > Third Parties > General Overview

[HN1] Non-parties to an agreement containing a forum selection clause may be entitled to enforce a forum selection clause where the relationship to the signatory is sufficiently close or where the liability of a corporation and an officer is based on the same alleged acts.

Contracts Law > Contract Conditions & Provisions > Forum Selection Clauses

[HN2] A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court.

Contracts Law > Contract Conditions & Provisions > Forum Selection Clauses

[HN3] Absent a strong showing that it should be set aside, a forum selection agreement will control.

Contracts Law > Contract Conditions & Provisions > Forum Selection Clauses

[HN4] As a general rule, only parties in privity of contract may enforce terms of the contract such as a forum selection clause found within the agreement.

Contracts Law > Contract Conditions & Provisions > Forum Selection Clauses

Contracts Law > Third Parties > General Overview

[HN5] There are three sets of circumstances under which a non-party may invoke a forum selection clause: First, an entity or individual that is a third-party beneficiary of the agreement may enforce a forum selection clause found within the agreement. Second, parties to a global transaction who are not signatories to a specific agreement within that transaction may nonetheless benefit from a forum selection clause contained in such agreement if the agreements are executed at the same time, by the same parties or for the same purpose. Third, a non-party that is closely related to one of the signatories can enforce a forum selection clause. The relationship between the non-party and the signatory in such cases must be sufficiently close so that enforcement of the clause is foreseeable by virtue of the relationship between them.

HEADNOTES

Contracts — Construction – Forum Selection Clause — Prima Facie Validity and Enforceability

1. In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice arising out of injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff while at summer camp, the forum selection clause in the summer camp contract between the camp and plaintiff mother was prima facie valid and enforceable. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the forum selection clause was unreasonable or unjust, or that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that, for all practical purposes, plaintiffs would be deprived of their day in court. Plaintiffs also failed to allege, let alone demonstrate, that the forum selection clause was the result of fraud or overreaching. Under the circumstances, plaintiffs failed to make any showing, let along a strong showing, that the forum selection clause should be set aside on such bases.

Contracts — Construction — Forum Selection Clause — Applicability

2. The forum selection clause in the summer camp contract between defendant camp and plaintiff mother was applicable in plaintiffs’ action to recover damages for medical malpractice arising out of injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff while at camp. Notwithstanding the placement of the forum selection clause in the paragraph of the camp contract which otherwise pertained to fees, tuition and refund policies, the applicability of the forum selection clause did not turn on the type or nature of the dispute between the parties. Rather, by its express language, the forum selection clause applied to “any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the parties to which the camp or its agents is a party.”

Contracts — Construction – Forum Selection Clause — Enforceability

3. The Pennsylvania forum selection clause in the summer camp contract between the camp and plaintiff mother was enforceable in plaintiffs’ action to recover damages for medical malpractice arising out of injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff while at camp even though it did not include any language expressly providing that plaintiffs and the camp intended to grant exclusive jurisdiction to Pennsylvania. The forum selection clause related to both jurisdiction and venue, and employed mandatory venue language.

Courts — Jurisdiction — Enforcement of Forum Selection Clause by Nonsignatory

4. In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice arising out of injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff while at summer camp, the doctors and nurse who treated the infant plaintiff were not entitled to dismissal of the complaint against them based on the Pennsylvania forum selection clause in the summer camp contract between the infant plaintiff’s mother and the camp. Those defendants were not signatories to the camp contract and did not have a sufficiently close relationship with the camp such that enforcement of the forum selection clause by them was foreseeable to plaintiffs by virtue of that relationship. Although plaintiffs had granted authority to the camp and to its “assigns” to hospitalize and treat the infant plaintiff, nothing in the camp contract indicated that the camp intended to use those defendants or the hospital where they worked in the event the infant plaintiff required off-camp medical services. Nor was there anything in the camp contract indicating that the camp intended to use the hospital where those defendants worked–located in a different state from the camp–in the event that the infant plaintiff required medical services.

Courts — Jurisdiction — Enforcement of Forum Selection Clause by Nonsignatory

5. In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice arising out of injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff while at summer camp, defendant doctor, who worked at the camp and treated the infant plaintiff before taking him to the hospital, was entitled to enforce the forum selection clause in the summer camp contract between the infant plaintiff’s mother and the camp, despite defendant’s status as a nonsignatory to the camp contract. The forum selection clause itself applied to any dispute arising out of the agreement or otherwise between the parties to which the camp or its agents was a party. Moreover, the camp’s relationship with defendant, its on-site medical employee, was sufficiently close so that enforcement of the clause was foreseeable.

COUNSEL: [***1] Martin Clearwater & Bell, LLP, New York City (William P. Brady, Timothy M. Smith and Stewart G. Milch of counsel), for appellants.

Napoli Bern Ripka, LLP, New York City (Denise A. Rubin of counsel), for respondents.

JUDGES: REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ. RIVERA, J.P., MILLER and ROMAN, JJ., concur.

OPINION BY: DICKERSON, J.

OPINION

[*243] [***2] [**51] Dickerson, J.

Factual Background and the Camp Contract

On or about June 25, 2007 the plaintiff Malka Bernstein (hereinafter Malka) entered into a contract (hereinafter the Camp Contract) with the defendant Camp Island Lake (hereinafter the Camp) for her then 13-year-old son, the plaintiff Jordan Bernstein (hereinafter Jordan), to attend the Camp during summer 2007. The Camp is located in Starrucca, Wayne County, Pennsylvania, where it also maintains a summer office. The Camp maintains a winter office in New York City.

The second paragraph of the Camp Contract provided:

“If it is necessary to obtain off-camp medical/surgical/dental services for the camper, such expenses shall be paid by the parent except the portion supplied by the camp medical staff. Authority is granted without limitation to the camp/assigns in all medical matters to hospitalize/treat/order injections/anesthesia/surgery for the camper. The parent is responsible for all pre-existing medical conditions, out of camp medical/surgical/hospital/pharmaceutical/allergy expenses and for providing [*244] adequate quantities [***3] of necessary medications and allergy serums to camp in pharmacy containers with doctor’s instructions. The parent(s) or legal guardian(s) hereby states that the camper is in good, normal health and has no abnormal physical, emotional, or mental handicaps” (emphasis added).

The Camp Contract also contained a forum selection clause. The sixth paragraph of the Camp Contract provided:

“Enclosed with this agreement is $ 1000 per child enrolled in program. Payments on account of tuition (less $ 100 registration fee) will be refunded if requested before January 1st. Cancellations of sessions will not be accepted after January 1st. Thereafter, no refunds will be made. All refunds will be made on or about May 1st. Installments on the balance will be due on January 1st, March 1st, & May 1st. A returned check fee of $ 25 will be applied to all returned checks. These rates are subject to change without notice. Any outstanding balance precludes admission to camp. The [***4] venue of any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the parties to which the camp or its agents is a party shall be either the local District Justice Court or the Court of Common Pleas, Wayne County, Pennsylvania” (emphasis added).

The eighth and final paragraph of the Camp Contract provided, in part, “[t]he parent represents that he/she has full authority [**52] to enroll the camper/to authorize participation in activities/medical care and to contract the aforesaid.”

On or about August 8, 2007, while enrolled at the Camp, Jordan developed a pain in his lower abdomen. The defendants Randee Wysoki and Jill Tschinkel, who were the doctor and registered nurse, respectively, working at the Camp at the time, allegedly cared for Jordan at the Camp before taking him to the defendant Wilson Memorial Regional Medical Center (hereinafter Wilson Memorial), in Johnson City, Broome County, New York, in the vicinity of the Camp. While at Wilson Memorial from August 8, 2007 through August 10, 2007, Jordan allegedly received care and treatment from the defendants Dina Farrell, M.D., Michael Farrell, M.D., Gregory Scagnelli, M.D., Julie Higgins, R.P.A., Patricia Grant, R.N., and [***5] William Kazalski, R.N. Allegedly due to the failure of the defendants to timely recognize and properly care for and treat Jordan’s condition, he sustained various injuries.

[*245] The Instant Action

In November 2007, Jordan and Malka, both as Jordan’s guardian and in her individual capacity, commenced the instant action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, against, among others, the Camp, Wilson Memorial, “Randy ‘Doe,’ M.D.,” ” ‘Jane Doe’ R.N.,” Dina Farrell, and Michael Farrell. Thereafter, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to substitute Wysoki for the defendant Randy “Doe,” and to add Scagnelli as a defendant.

After joinder of issue, the Camp moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on the forum selection clause in the Camp Contract.

The plaintiffs moved for leave to serve an amended summons and complaint to add Higgins and Jill Tschinkel, R.N., as defendants.

The defendants Grant, Kazalski, and Wilson Memorial jointly cross-moved to change the venue of the action from Nassau County to Broome County pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511 (a) on the grounds that the defendants [***6] Grant, Kazalski, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, Scagnelli, and Higgins worked and/or resided in, or within approximately 10 minutes of, Broome County, and also because Wilson Memorial was located in Broome County.

The defendants Wysoki, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, and Scagnelli (hereinafter collectively the doctor defendants) jointly cross-moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on the forum selection clause in the Camp Contract. The doctor defendants observed that, pursuant to the last paragraph of the Camp Contract, Malka represented that she had the authority to bind Jordan to the Camp Contract. The doctor defendants further pointed out that the Camp Contract “outlined the terms and conditions of [Jordan's] attendance at the Camp, including any necessary medical care and treatment or care and treatment decisions for [Jordan].” In that regard, according to the doctor defendants, “as all the parties to the instant action either provided care and treatment to [Jordan] at the Camp or at [Wilson Memorial] based on the Camp’s decision as to what care and treatment [Jordan] needed to receive, any litigation [***7] between the parties in this matter is subject to the terms and conditions of the [Camp Contract].”

[*246] Specifically, the doctor defendants argued that Wysoki was covered by the Camp Contract because she “was the physician working at the Camp who sent [Jordan] to [Wilson Memorial]” and thus “is part of this lawsuit through her work at [**53] the Camp.” The doctor defendants further argued that Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, and Scagnelli were covered by the Camp Contract because they “treated [Jordan] at [Wilson Memorial] pursuant to the Camp’s decision as ‘in loco parentis’ and with the authority granted to the Camp . . . to have [Jordan] treated at a hospital” and thus “became involved in the care and treatment of [Jordan] based on the decision made of the Camp to take [Jordan] to [Wilson Memorial].”

The doctor defendants also argued that the Camp Contract contained a prima facie valid forum selection clause that should be enforced “absent a strong showing that it should be set aside.” The doctor defendants further argued that the forum selection clause, which by its terms applied to “any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the parties to which the camp or its agents [***8] is a party,” applied to the instant action, since the plaintiffs’ tort claims depended on the existence of the Camp Contract. In that regard, the doctor defendants noted that “there would be no [tort claims] had [Jordan] not been a camper at the Camp during the Summer of 2007,” and that Jordan “would not have been a camper at the Camp without the terms and conditions of the [Camp Contract] being accepted and agreed to by [Malka].” Finally, the doctor defendants “noted that the Courts have held that [HN1] non-parties to an agreement containing a forum selection clause may be entitled to enforce a forum selection clause where the relationship to the signatory is sufficiently close or where the liability of a corporation and an officer is based on the same alleged acts” (citations omitted).

In an order entered June 13, 2008, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the Camp’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it based on the forum selection clause, denied that branch of the doctor defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the forum selection clause, and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for [***9] leave to serve an amended summons and complaint (2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS, 9483, 2008 NY Slip Op 31711[U]).

The doctor defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of the foregoing order as denied that branch of their cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint based on the forum selection clause.

[*247] The Camp moved for leave to reargue that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it based on the forum selection clause. The Camp argued that the Supreme Court “blurred the distinctions between [a parent's] legal ability to bind an infant plaintiff to the terms of a forum selection clause as opposed to a release of liability,” and that, “contrary to a release of liability, the law permits a parent of a minor child who signs a contract with a forum selection clause to bind the minor child to the terms and agreements set forth by the forum selection clause.”

The doctor defendants moved, inter alia, for leave to reargue that branch of their cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the forum selection clause. The doctor defendants argued that the Supreme Court erred in finding that Malka could not bind Jordan to the terms of the Camp Contract, [***10] including the forum selection clause, stating, “[t]he Courts have consistently held that non-signatory infants, who are the subject of and obtain benefit from an agreement signed by the parent, such as a camp enrollment contract, are considered to be third-party beneficiaries for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the contract.” Therefore, according to the doctor defendants, because Jordan “was a [**54] third-party beneficiary of the [Camp Contract] and as the forum selection clause in the [Camp Contract] is valid, the forum selection clause must be found to be applicable to [Jordan's] claims as well as [Malka's claims].”

The doctor defendants further argued that the Supreme Court erred in finding “that there was no factual predicate for the foreseeable enforcement [of the forum selection clause in the Camp Contract] by the non-signatory [doctor defendants].” Specifically, noting that the Camp Contract granted authority ” ‘without limitation to the camp/assigns in all medical matters to hospitalize/treat/order injections/anesthesia/surgery for the camper,’ ” the doctor defendants argued that the Camp “contract itself contemplated and provided the factual predicate for the medical treatment [***11] at issue.”

The doctor defendants argued that they “are exactly the ‘assigns’ that were contemplated by the [Camp Contract], as the same sentence in the contract states that the assigns may ‘hospitalize/treat’ [Jordan] and/or ‘order injections/anesthesia/surgery’ for [Jordan].” Thus, according to the doctor defendants, “the [Camp Contract] is the only mechanism by which [they as non-signatories] were able to ‘hospitalize/treat’ [Jordan] [*248] and, thus, the [Camp Contract] is the only mechanism by which there are claims for the non-signatory hospitalization and treatment at issue.”

The doctor defendants further argued that “there was a sufficiently ‘close relationship’ between the signatories to the [Camp Contract] and the non-signatory [doctor] defendants, to reasonably foresee that [the doctor defendants] or noted ‘assigns’ in the contract would seek to enforce the terms of the contract” (emphasis omitted).

Finally, regarding Wysoki in particular, the doctor defendants argued that the Supreme Court erred in finding “that the same acts are not alleged with regard to the claimed liability of the Camp and Dr. Wysoki.”

At some point in time, the plaintiffs served a supplemental summons and a second [***12] amended summons and complaint, inter alia, adding Higgins as a defendant. Higgins moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her based on the forum selection clause.

In an order entered September 30, 2008, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted leave to reargue to both the Camp and the doctor defendants, and, upon reargument, adhered to its original determination denying the respective branches of the Camp’s motion and the doctor defendants’ cross motion which were to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them based on the forum selection clause (2008 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS,10774, 2008 NY Slip Op 33610[U]). The Supreme Court also denied that branch of Higgins’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her based on the forum selection clause.

The doctor defendants appeal from so much of the second order as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination denying that branch of their cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint based on the forum selection clause, and Higgins jointly appeals from so much of the same order as denied that branch of her motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her based on the forum selection clause.

Discussion

[HN2] ” ‘A [***13] contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the [*249] selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, [**55] for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court’ ” (Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736, 835 NYS2d 606 [2007], quoting LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395, 817 NYS2d 657 [2006]; see Harry Casper, Inc. v Pines Assoc., L.P., 53 AD3d 764, 765, 861 NYS2d 820 [2008]; Fleet Capital Leasing/Global Vendor Fin. v Angiuli Motors, Inc., 15 AD3d 535, 790 NYS2d 684 [2005]).

[HN3] ” ‘Absent a strong showing that it should be set aside, a forum selection agreement will control’ ” (Horton v Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc., 62 AD3d 836, 836, 878 NYS2d 793 [2009], quoting Di Ruocco v Flamingo Beach Hotel & Casino, 163 AD2d 270, 272, 557 NYS2d 140 [1990]).

The Forum Selection Clause Is Prima Facie Valid and Enforceable

In Horton v Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc. (62 AD3d 836-837, 878 NYS2d 793 [2009]), considering a forum selection clause under similar circumstances, we concluded,

“Here, the plaintiff failed to make the requisite ‘strong showing’ that the forum selection clause in her employment [***14] agreement, which requires disputes to be decided in the courts of the State of Missouri, should be set aside. Although the plaintiff averred that she is a single mother who resides with her teenaged daughter in Dutchess County, New York, this claim was insufficient, standing alone, to demonstrate that enforcement of the forum selection clause would be unjust. The plaintiff offered no evidence that the cost of commencing a wrongful discharge action in Missouri would be so financially prohibitive that, for all practical purposes, she would be deprived of her day in court. Moreover, the plaintiff did not allege that the inclusion of a forum selection clause in her employment contract was the product of overreaching, and she did not demonstrate that the clause is unconscionable.” (Citations omitted.)

[1] Similarly, here, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the forum selection clause is unreasonable or unjust, or that a trial in Wayne County, Pennsylvania, would be so gravely difficult that, for all practical purposes, they would be deprived of their day in court. Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to allege, let [*250] alone demonstrate, that the forum selection clause was the [***15] result of fraud or overreaching. Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs failed to make any showing, let alone a strong showing, that the forum selection clause should be set aside on such bases (id.; see Trump v Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., 65 AD3d 1329, 1331-1332, 887 NYS2d 121 [2009]; compare Yoshida v PC Tech U.S.A. & You-Ri, Inc., 22 AD3d 373, 803 NYS2d 48 [2005] [the Supreme Court properly declined to enforce a contractual forum selection clause fixing Tokyo as the forum for any litigation between the parties, since the plaintiff made "a strong showing that a trial in Tokyo would be so impracticable and inconvenient that she would be deprived of her day in court"]).

The Forum Selection Clause Applies to this Action

[2] Further, the forum selection clause applies to the instant tort action. Notwithstanding the placement of the forum selection clause in the sixth paragraph of the Camp Contract, which otherwise pertains to fees, tuition, and refund policies, the applicability of the forum selection clause does not turn on the type or nature of the dispute between the parties. Rather, by its express language, the forum selection clause applies to “any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the [***16] parties to which the camp or its agents is a party” (see [**56] Tourtellot v Harza Architects, Engrs. & Constr. Mgrs., 55 AD3d 1096, 1097-1098, 866 NYS2d 793 [2008] [rejecting the defendant's claim that the subject forum selection clause in its agreement with the third-party defendant " 'was never intended to apply to third-party claims in personal injury and products liability actions such as . . . plaintiff's action here,' (since) under its broad and unequivocal terms, the applicability of the subject forum selection clause does not turn on the type or nature of the dispute between them; rather, it applies to 'any dispute arising under or in connection with' their agreement"]; see also Buhler v French Woods Festival of Performing Arts, 154 AD2d 303, 304, 546 NYS2d 591 [1989] [in a personal injury action to recover damages for negligence, the plaintiffs were bound by a forum selection clause in a camp enrollment contract which provided that "(t)he venue of any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the parties to which the camp or its agents is a party shall be either the Village of Hancock, N.Y. Justice Court or the County or State Supreme Court in Delaware County"]).

Jurisdiction and Venue

[3] Moreover, the forum [***17] selection clause is enforceable as a general matter even though it does not include any language [*251] expressly providing that the plaintiffs and the Camp intended to grant exclusive jurisdiction to Pennsylvania. The forum selection clause relates to both jurisdiction and venue, and employs mandatory venue language, providing that the venue of any dispute arising out of the agreement or otherwise between the parties “shall be either the local District Justice Court or the Court of Common Pleas, Wayne County, Pennsylvania.” Accordingly, since the forum selection clause addresses jurisdiction and contains mandatory venue language, the clause fixing venue is enforceable (see Fear & Fear, Inc. v N.I.I. Brokerage, L.L.C., 50 AD3d 185, 187, 851 NYS2d 311 [2008]; John Boutari & Son, Wines & Spirits, S.A. v Attiki Importers & Distribs. Inc., 22 F3d 51, 52 [1994]).

Enforceability of Forum Selection Clause by Nonsignatories

Notwithstanding the fact that the forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable and applicable to the instant tort action as a general matter, this Court must further determine whether the defendant doctors and Higgins, who are not signatories to the Camp Contract, may enforce the forum selection clause.

[HN4] As [***18] a general rule, “only parties in privity of contract may enforce terms of the contract such as a forum selection clause found within the agreement” (Freeford Ltd. v Pendleton, 53 AD3d 32, 38, 857 NYS2d 62 [2008]; see ComJet Aviation Mgt. v Aviation Invs. Holdings, 303 AD2d 272, 758 NYS2d 607 [2003]). However,

[HN5] “there are three sets of circumstances under which a non-party may invoke a forum selection clause: First, it is well settled that an entity or individual that is a third-party beneficiary of the agreement may enforce a forum selection clause found within the agreement. Second, parties to a ‘global transaction’ who are not signatories to a specific agreement within that transaction may nonetheless benefit from a forum selection clause contained in such agreement if the agreements are executed at the same time, by the same parties or for the same purpose. Third, a nonparty that is ‘closely related’ to one of the signatories can enforce a forum selection clause. The relationship between the nonparty and the signatory in such cases must be sufficiently close so that enforcement of the clause is foreseeable by [**57] virtue of the relationship between them.” (Freeford Ltd. v Pendleton, 53 AD3d at 38-39 [citations [*252] omitted]; see Direct Mail Prod. Servs. v MBNA Corp., 2000 US Dist LEXIS 12945, *8, 2000 WL 1277597,*3 [SD NY 2000]; [***19] cf. EPIX Holding Corp. v Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., 410 NJ Super 453, 463, 982 A2d 1194, 1200 [2009] ["It is clear that in certain situations, a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement may compel a signatory to arbitrate. Since arbitration agreements are analyzed under traditional principles of state law, such principles allow a contract to be enforced by or against nonparties to the contract through assumption, piercing the corporate veil, alter ego, incorporation by reference, third-party beneficiary theories, waiver and estoppel" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)].)

[4] Here, relying on the provision in the Camp Contract by which the plaintiffs granted authority to the Camp and to its “assigns” in all medical matters, inter alia, to hospitalize and treat Jordan, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, Scagnelli, and Higgins claim to have a sufficiently close relationship with the Camp such that enforcement of the forum selection clause by them was foreseeable to the plaintiffs by virtue of that relationship. Significantly, however, there is nothing in the Camp Contract indicating that the Camp intended to use Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, Scagnelli, and Higgins in particular in [***20] the event Jordan required “off-camp” medical services. In fact, there is nothing in the Camp Contract indicating that the Camp intended to use Wilson Memorial–located in a different state from the Camp–and its physicians and physician assistants in the event Jordan required medical services.

Under these circumstances, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, Scagnelli, and Higgins do not have a sufficiently close relationship with the Camp such that enforcement of the forum selection clause by them was foreseeable to the plaintiffs by virtue of that relationship (cf. Freeford Ltd. v Pendleton, 53 AD3d at 40-41 ["Even a cursory examination of these two agreements makes clear that (defendants) Lane Pendleton and Cairnwood Management had every reason to foresee that (plaintiff) Freeford would seek to enforce the forum selection clause against them"]; Dogmoch Intl. Corp. v Dresdner Bank, 304 AD2d 396, 397, 757 NYS2d 557 [2003] ["(a)lthough defendant was a nonsignatory to the account agreements, it was reasonably foreseeable that it would seek to enforce the forum selection clause given the close relationship between itself and its (signatory) subsidiary"]; Direct [*253] Mail Prod. Servs. v MBNA Corp., 2000 US Dist LEXIS 12945, *10-14, 2000 WL 1277597, *4-5 [***21] [where "a number of . . . clauses in the Agreement between (plaintiff) Direct Mail and (nonparty) MBNA Direct indicate that the signatories intended the contract to benefit related (nonsignatory defendant) MBNA companies," MBNA Corporation and MBNA America Bank, N.A., were sufficiently closely related to MBNA Direct such that it was foreseeable that they would seek to enforce a forum selection clause contained in the subject agreement]).

[5] Conversely, however, we conclude that Wysoki, as an employee of the Camp, is entitled to enforce the forum selection clause despite her status as a nonsignatory to the Camp Contract. The forum selection clause itself applies to “any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the parties to which the camp or its agents is a party” (emphasis added). Moreover, we find that the [**58] Camp’s relationship with Wysoki, its on-site medical employee, was “sufficiently close so that enforcement of the clause [was] foreseeable by virtue of the relationship between them” (Freeford Ltd. v Pendleton, 53 AD3d at 39). Thus, Wysoki, despite being a nonsignatory to the Camp Contract, was entitled to enforce the valid forum selection clause. Accordingly, [***22] the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the doctor defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Wysoki based on the forum selection clause.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Higgins’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on the forum selection clause. However, the Supreme Court improperly, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination denying that branch of the doctor defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Wysoki pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on the forum selection clause.

Accordingly, the appeal from the order entered June 13, 2008 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered September 30, 2008, made upon reargument. The order entered September 30, 2008 is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, upon reargument, adhering to the determination in the order entered June 13, 2008, denying that branch of the doctor defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Wysoki pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) [***23] and 501 based on the forum selection clause and substituting therefor a provision, upon reargument, vacating the determination in the order entered June 13, 2008 denying that branch of the doctor defendants’ cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint [*254] insofar as asserted against Wysoki pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on the forum selection clause and thereupon granting that branch of the cross motion. As so modified, the order entered September 30, 2008 is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

Rivera, J.P., Miller and Roman, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered June 13, 2008 is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order entered September 30, 2008, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered September 30, 2008 is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof, upon reargument, adhering to the determination in the order entered June 13, 2008, denying that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Randee Wysoki, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, and Gregory Scagnelli which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Randee Wysoki pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and [***24] 501 based on a forum selection clause and substituting therefor a provision, upon reargument, vacating the determination in the order entered June 13, 2008, denying that branch of the cross motion of the defendants Randee Wysoki, Dina Farrell, Michael Farrell, and Gregory Scagnelli which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Randee Wysoki pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 501 based on a forum selection clause and thereupon granting that branch of the cross motion; as so modified, the order entered September 30, 2008, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

Posted: December 19, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Camp for Minors, Charity / Charitable Immunity, Legal Case, Negligence, Release / Waivers, Texas, Zip Line | Tags: Charitable Immunity Act, Charity, Release, Salvation Army | Leave a comment »

Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

Bruce Galvan, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Salvation Army, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-3365

United States District Court For The Southern District Of Texas, Houston Division

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

May 3, 2011, Decided

May 3, 2011, Filed

CORE TERMS: Charitable Immunity Act, summary judgment, Charitable, amount of damages, conspicuousness, premature, matter of law, own negligence, settlement, affirmative defense, font, charitable organization, liability insurance coverage, per person, per occurrence, notice requirements, bodily injury, jury verdict, conscious indifference, reckless disregard, self-insurance, conspicuous, discovery, retention, qualify, cap, insurance coverage, enforceable, undisputed, attended

COUNSEL: [*1] For Bruce Galvan, Individually and as Next Friend, Cynthia Perez, Individually And as Next Friend, Plaintiffs: John Paul Venzke, LEAD ATTORNEY, The Venzke Law Firm LLP, Houston, TX; Michael Andrew Fisher, Dyment & Fisher, Houston, TX.

For Salvation Army, Defendant: Teresa Jones Del Valle, LEAD ATTORNEY, Del Valle Law Firm, P.C., Houston, TX.

JUDGES: Nancy F. Atlas, United States District Judge.

OPINION BY: Nancy F. Atlas

OPINION

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This personal injury case is before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant’s Affirmative Defense of Release (“Release Motion”) [Doc. # 23] filed by Plaintiffs Bruce Galvan and Cynthia Perez. Defendant filed an Opposition [Doc. # 27], and Plaintiffs filed a Reply [Doc. # 28]. Also pending is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Defendant’s Defense of The Charitable Immunity and Liability Act of 1987 (“Charitable Immunity Motion”), to which Defendant filed an Opposition [Doc. # 29], and Plaintiffs filed a Reply [Doc. # 34]. Having reviewed the full record and having considered relevant legal authorities, the Court grants the Release Motion and denies without prejudice the Charitable Immunity Motion.

I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs [*2] Bruce Galvan and Cynthia Perez are parents of Plaintiff Christopher Galvan. Christopher was eleven years old when he attended Camp Hoblitzelle, a facility owned and operated by Defendant The Salvation Army. In June 2010, while at Camp Hoblitzelle, Christopher Galvan fell 40-50 feet from a zip-line and was seriously injured. Before Christopher attended Camp Hoblitzelle, Cynthia Perez signed a “Permission/Waiver Form for Residential Camps.” See Exh. A to Release Motion.

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking to recover from The Salvation Army for the injury to Christopher Galvan. Defendant has asserted the existence of the Release as an affirmative defense. Defendant has asserted also that The Charitable Immunity and Liability Act of 1987 (“Charitable Immunity Act”) limits its liability in this case to $500,000.00 per person and $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment on each of these arguments. The motions have been fully briefed.

II.STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a sufficient showing [*3] of the existence of an element essential to the party’s case for which that party will bear the burden at trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); see also Baton Rouge Oil and Chem. Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 375 (5th Cir. 2002). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must determine whether the “pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23; Weaver v. CCA Indus., Inc., 529 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is an appropriate mechanism for resolving issues of law arising from a materially complete factual record. See Trevino v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 882 F.2d 182, 184 (5th Cir. 1989).

III.RELEASE MOTION

Defendant has asserted the existence of the Release signed by Cynthia Perez as an affirmative defense. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the release defense because the Release in this case fails to satisfy the [*4] requirements for it to be enforceable.

Under Texas law, there are two fair notice requirements for release agreements: (1) the express negligence doctrine and (2) the conspicuousness requirement. See Storage & Processors, Inc. v. Reyes, 134 S.W.3d 190, 192 (Tex. 2004); Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505, 509 (Tex. 1993). The express negligence doctrine requires that a party’s intent to be released from the consequences of that party’s own negligence must be expressed in specific terms within the four corners of the release document. See Fisk Elec. Co. v. Constructors & Assocs., Inc., 888 S.W.2d 813, 814 (Tex. 1994); Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Constr. Co., 725 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex. 1987). The conspicuousness requirement provides that the releasing language must be conspicuously written, such that a reasonable person would have noticed it. See Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 511. Examples of conspicuous language include language that appears in contrasting type or color, in all capital letters, or otherwise calls attention to itself. See Reyes, 134 S.W.3d at 192 (citing Littlefield v. Schaefer, 955 S.W.2d 272, 274-75 (Tex. 1997)); Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 511.

Compliance with [*5] the fair notice requirements is a question of law for the Court. Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 509. A release that fails to satisfy both of the two requirements is unenforceable as a matter of law. Storage & Processors, 134 S.W.3d at 192. In this case, the Court concludes that the Release asserted by Defendant does not satisfy either requirement.

The Release provides that the signer “hereby voluntarily releases The Salvation Army from any and all liability resulting from or arising in any manner whatsoever out of any participation in any Activity.” See Release, Exh. 1 to Release Motion. As an initial matter, the Release purports to release Defendant from liability for injury suffered while participating in any “Activity.” The “Activity” is to be identified by filling in a blank line on the Release form. On the Release at issue in this case, the “Activity” line contains no identified activity but, instead, has “Cynthia Perez” written in as the “Activity.”

More importantly, the Release language does not specifically state that Defendant is being released from liability for its own future negligence. Indeed, there is no express mention of negligence at all. Although there is no requirement that [*6] the release contain the specific word “negligence,” the intent to release a party from liability for its own negligence must be clearly expressed. See Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Petroleum Personnel, Inc., 768 S.W.2d 724, 726 (Tex. 1989); Silsbee Hosp., Inc. v. George, 163 S.W.3d 284, 290 (Tex. App. — Beaumont 2005, review denied). In the Release at issue in this case, there is no clear expression of an intent to release Defendant from its own negligence in connection with Christopher Galvan’s participation in zip-lining.

The Release fails also to satisfy the conspicuousness requirement. The release language is in the same font and font size as the remainder of the document. There is no bolding, underlining, or other mechanism to make the release language conspicuous. Instead, the release language is buried in a full page of single-spaced, small font size text.

The Court concludes that the Release in this case does not satisfy the express negligence or conspicuousness requirements and, as a result, the Release is not enforceable as a matter of law.

IV.CHARITABLE IMMUNITY MOTION

The Charitable Immunity Act limits liability of a qualified charitable organization to $500,000.00 per person and [*7] $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 84.006. To qualify for the limitation, the charitable organization must have liability insurance coverage “in the amount of at least $500,000 for each person and $1,000,000 for each single occurrence for death or bodily injury . . ..” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 84.007(g). The Charitable Immunity Act provides that the liability insurance coverage “may be provided under a contract of insurance or other plan of insurance authorized by statute and may be satisfied by the purchase of a $1,000,000 bodily injury and property damage combined single limit policy.” See id.

Defendant asserts that it is entitled to the damages limitation of the Charitable Immunity Act. It is undisputed that Defendant has over $35,000,000.00 of insurance coverage. It is also undisputed, however, that the first $500,000.00 is in the form of a self-insurance retention and the next $4,500,000.00 is in the form of The Salvation Army’s Risk Trust. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant is not entitled to the damages limitation because Defendant is self-insured and self insurance does not meet the statutory requirement of the Charitable Immunity Act. ¹

1 Plaintiffs [*8] also argue that Defendant is judicially estopped to assert the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation because a different Salvation Army entity in Maine asserted in a lawsuit in 1997 that the Salvation Army entity in Maine did not have insurance coverage. The Court concludes on this limited record that Plaintiffs have not established an adequate factual basis for judicial estoppel to apply.

Plaintiffs in this case have not alleged an amount of damages. They allege that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000.00. See Amended Complaint [Doc. # 16], ¶ 1. Plaintiffs allege also that Christopher Galvan’s medical bills exceed $200,000.00. See id., ¶ 5. Thus, on this record, the specific amounts alleged by Plaintiffs do not exceed the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation. Moreover, the amount of damages has not been established by either settlement or a jury award to be in excess of the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation. As a result, the Court concludes that a decision on whether the limitation applies to a fully-funded self insurance retention is premature at this stage of the proceedings. See, e.g., Morgan v. Fellini’s Pizza, Inc., 64 F. Supp. 2d 1304, 1316, n.6 (N.D. Ga. 1999) [*9] (noting that a request for summary judgment as to whether a damages cap applies was premature); Rafferty v. Howard, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98423, 2010 WL 3768142, *1 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 20, 2010) (holding that preliminary ruling on whether statutory cap applies was premature). If there is a settlement or jury verdict for more than $1,000,000.00 in this case, the Court will at that time decide whether Defendant qualifies for the Charitable Immunity Act’s limitation.

Additionally, the Charitable Immunity Act provides that its limitations do not apply “to an act or omission that is intentional, wilfully negligent, or done with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 84.007(a). Plaintiffs specifically allege that Defendant’s actions in this case were “intentional, willfully negligent, or done with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of Christopher Galvan and others.” See Amended Complaint [Doc. # 16], ¶ 12. Should the jury find that Defendant’s actions were as alleged by Plaintiffs in paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint, the issue regarding whether self-insurance satisfies the insurance requirement of the Charitable Immunity Act [*10] would become moot.

V.CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The release relied upon by Defendant satisfies neither the express negligence doctrine nor the conspicuousness requirement. As a result, there has been no effective release of Defendant for its alleged negligence in this case. Plaintiffs have not alleged an amount of damages and no amount of damages has been determined either through settlement or by jury verdict. As a result, it is premature to decide whether the Act limits the amount of damages recoverable in this case. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Release Motion [Doc. # 23] is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Charitable Immunity Motion [Doc. # 26] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas this 3rd day of May, 2011.

/s/ Nancy F. Atlas

Nancy F. Atlas

United States District Judge

Texas makes it easier to write a release because the law is clear.

Posted: December 19, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Assumption of the Risk, Camp for Minors, Case Analysis, Texas, Zip Line | Tags: charitable immunity, Charitable Immunity Act, Charity, Negligence, Salvation Army, Summary judgment, summer camp, Texas, United States district court, zip line | Leave a comment »

Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

Too bad no one read the law to the Salvation Army in this case.

This case was filed in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of Texas. The decision was based on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the plaintiff to throw out the defendant’s defense of release. Normally, these types of motions are filed by the defendants to end the litigation not by the plaintiff. There was also an issue of whether the charitable immunity statute applied to limit the damages in the case.

The facts which gave rise to the case are the defendants were parents of an eleven year-old boy who attended Camp Hoblitzelle which was owned and operated by the Salvation Army of Texas. While attending the camp the minor was riding a zip line when he fell 40-50’ suffering unnamed injuries.

There was a blank in the release where the activity the parties were releasing was to be filled in. The blank line in this case was filled in with the plaintiff’s name Cynthia Perez written in as the activity. The court took delight in pointing this out.

Summary of the case

The plaintiff filed their motion for summary judgment to eliminate the defense of release. The minor’s mother signed the Permission/Waiver Form for Residential Camps prior to the minor attending camp.

Under Texas law, there are two tests to determine if a release is valid; (1) the express negligence doctrine and (2) the conspicuousness requirement test.

“A release that fails to satisfy both of the two requirements is unenforceable as a matter of law.”

The Express Negligence Doctrine is:

The express negligence doctrine requires that a party’s intent to be released from the consequences of that party’s own negligence must be expressed in specific terms within the four corners of the release document.

The release in this case used the language “…hereby voluntarily releases The Salvation Army from any and all liability resulting from or arising in any manner whatsoever out of any participation in any Activity.” This language was not strict enough to place the signor on notice that they were giving up their legal rights according to the court.

The release was not clear. It did not state that the defendant was being released for its future negligence. Although there is no requirement that the word negligence be in the release and referenced, it is clear the release would be difficult to write without the word negligence. The court held the release at issue had no clear expression or language showing intent to release the defendant from its own negligence.

Consequently, the release failed the Express Negligence Doctrine.

The Conspicuousness requirement test requires.

… the releasing language must be conspicuously written, such that a reasonable person would have noticed it. Examples of conspicuous language include language that appears in contrasting type or color, in all capital letters, or otherwise calls attention to itself.

With regard to the conspicuousness, requirement test the court stated.

The release language is in the same font and font size as the remainder of the document. There is no bolding, underlining, or other mechanism to make the release language conspicuous. Instead, the release language is buried in a full page of single-spaced, small font size text.

Here is a great example that your release cannot hide the important legal language from anyone signing it.

The court also looked into the Charitable Immunity Act and held the issue was not ripe because whether or not the defendant was subject to the limitation of damages would not be an issue unless the plaintiff was able to recover an amount greater than the limitation of $500,000 per person and $1,000,000 per occurrence.

The court also stated the Charitable Immunity Act did not apply to defendants whose “act or omission that is intentional, wilfully negligent, or done with conscious indifference or reckless disregard for the safety of others.” The plaintiff had plead actions of the defendant in almost identical language which was another issue making the issue not ripe for decision.

So Now What?

This decision is a road map on what not to do with a release in Texas.

1. Make sure your release states that it is a release and the person signing it is giving up their legal rights.

2. Make sure the language in the release is clear. The plaintiff is releasing you from liability for your negligence in advance of any injury. You are going to have to use the word negligence in your release.

3. The release language cannot be hidden. It must be set out in such a way that it is identifiable as something important that the signor needs to know about.

4. All blanks in the document need to be located in one place so it only takes a quick scan to make sure everything is completed properly.

5. Anything that can be completed by the defendant or filled in must be completed by the defendant.

6. Have an attorney that knows and understands your operation and the law affecting your business write your release.

Writing a release is not like cooking. When you cook you have to really screw up to make something that is not edible. (I’ve been single my entire life so my definition of edible may be different from yours……) Writing a release is a much more precise endeavor.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

Mobile Site: http://m.recreation-law.com

WordPress Tags: Texas,Galvan,Salvation,Army,Dist,LEXIS,Federal,District,Court,Southern,decision,Motion,Summary,Judgment,plaintiff,defendant,defendants,litigation,statute,parents,Camp,Hoblitzelle,injuries,Cynthia,Perez,Permission,Waiver,Form,Residential,Camps,Under,negligence,doctrine,requirement,requirements,consequences,manner,participation,Although,person,Examples,capital,attention,size,remainder,mechanism,Instead,text,Here,example,Charitable,limitation,occurrence,omission,indifference,road,Make,injury,blanks,attorney,life,definition,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,TheSalvationArmy,FederalCourt,SummaryJudgment,CampHoblitzelle,ExpressNegligenceDoctrine,ConspicuousnessRequirement,whether,signor

Cole v. Boy Scouts of America, 2011 S.C. LEXIS 383

Posted: December 12, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Camp for Minors, Legal Case, Sports | Tags: Boy Scouts, BSA, camping, church, softball | Leave a comment »

Cole v. Boy Scouts of America, 2011 S.C. LEXIS 383

Karen Cole, as Guardian ad litem for David C., Appellant, v. Boy Scouts of America, Indian Waters Council, Pack 48, Faith Presbyterian Church and Jeff Wagner, Defendants, of whom Jeff Wagner is, Respondent. David Cole and Karen Cole, Appellants v. Boy Scouts of America, Indian Waters Council, Pack 48, Faith Presbyterian Church and Jeff Wagner, Defendants, of whom Jeff Wagner is, Respondent.

Opinion No. 27072

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

2011 S.C. LEXIS 383

October 5, 2011, Heard

December 5, 2011, Filed

NOTICE:

THIS DECISION IS NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED.

PRIOR HISTORY: [*1]

Appeal From Richland County. G. Thomas Cooper, Jr., Circuit Court Judge.

DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.

COUNSEL: Arthur K. Aiken, of Aiken & Hightower, P.A., of Columbia, for Appellants.

John M. Grantland, Alice P. Adams, and Ashley B. Stratton, of Murphy & Grantland, of Columbia, for Respondent.

JUDGES: JUSTICE HEARN. TOAL, C.J., BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, J., concurring in a separate opinion.

OPINION BY: HEARN

OPINION

JUSTICE HEARN: David Cole, the primary appellant, was injured while catching during a father-son game of softball at a Cub Scout outing when a baserunner collided with him at home plate. He brought this action alleging negligence and recklessness against the baserunner and the sponsors of the game. The circuit court judge granted summary judgment to the baserunner, and we affirm.

FACTUAL/PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In March 2004, David Cole and his son, David Jr., who was a member of Cub Scout Pack 48, attended a Cub Scout family camping trip. During the course of the trip, Cole and David Jr. participated in a father-son, pick-up softball game. Jeff Wagner and his son were also on the camping trip and were playing on the opposite team from the Coles in the softball game. Although one of the older boys had been playing [*2] catcher, Cole took over the position because he was afraid the boy would be hit by a foul ball or by the batter.

Neither of the teams kept score, and during each inning everyone was allowed to bat. Apparently, some of the fathers were playing too aggressively in the minds of some participants and hitting the ball with full swings. One of the Scout leaders, Keith Corley, briefly interrupted the game and asked them to play more safely, fearing that they were putting the scouts in danger.

During Wagner’s next turn at bat, he hit a double. Another father came up to bat after him and hit the ball into the outfield, potentially allowing Wagner to score. As Wagner reached home plate, he collided with Cole, who had moved on top of the plate, thereby placing his body directly in the baseline. Wagner was running so fast that he was unable to stop or change directions in time to avoid Cole. Upon impact, Wagner flipped in the air and landed on a bat, breaking a rib. Cole suffered a closed head injury and was rendered semiconscious. He then began bleeding and went into convulsions. Cole had to be airlifted to Palmetto Richland Hospital where he spent two days in the intensive care unit. David Jr. [*3] witnessed the entire accident in fear that his father was going to die.

Cole and his wife Karen, personally and as guardian ad litem for David Jr. (collectively, Appellants), brought this action against Wagner, the Boy Scouts of America, Indian Waters Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Pack 48, and Faith Presbyterian Church for personal injury, loss of consortium, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Wagner ¹ moved for summary judgment, contending he owed no duty to Cole because Cole assumed the risks incident to the sport of softball. The circuit court granted Wagner’s motion, and this appeal followed.

1 The Coles settled with all the other defendants.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[HN1] An appellate court reviewing a grant of summary judgment applies the same standard used by the trial court. Doe ex rel. Doe v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 393 S.C. 240, 244, 711 S.E.2d 908, 910 (2011). Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Rule 56(c), SCRCP. [HN2] In determining whether a triable issue of material fact exists, the Court must construe all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Wogan v. Kunze, 379 S.C. 581, 585, 666 S.E.2d 901, 903 (2008) [*4] [HN3] “In order to withstand a motion for summary judgment in cases applying the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof, the non-moving party is only required to submit a mere scintilla of evidence.” Turner v. Milliman, 392 S.C. 116, 122, 708 S.E.2d 766, 769 (2011). [HN4] “A motion for summary judgment on the basis of the absence of a duty is a question of law for the court to determine.” Oblachinski v. Reynolds, 391 S.C. 557, 560, 706 S.E.2d 844, 845 (2011). If a legal duty is established, whether the defendant breached that duty is a question of fact. Singletary v. S.C. Dept. of Educ., 316 S.C. 153, 157, 447 S.E.2d 231, 233 (Ct. App. 1994).

LAW/ANALYSIS

Appellants argue that the circuit court erred in finding Cole assumed the risk of his injury by engaging in a game of softball because Wagner’s conduct was outside the scope of the game. Specifically, Appellants argue Wagner’s behavior was inconsistent with the ordinary risks of softball because the game was intended to be noncompetitive, Wagner violated a rule of the game, and he acted recklessly. We disagree.

[HN5] “Primary implied assumption of risk arises when the plaintiff impliedly assumes those risks that are inherent in a [*5] particular activity.” Davenport v. Cotton Hope Plantation Horizontal Prop. Regime, 333 S.C. 71, 81, 508 S.E.2d 565, 570 (1998). The doctrine of primary implied assumption of risk “goes to the initial determination of whether the defendant’s legal duty encompasses the risk encountered by the plaintiff.” Id. [HN6] To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must first show that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. Doe, 393 S.C. at 246, 711 S.E.2d at 911. Absent a legally recognized duty, the defendant in a negligence action is entitled to a judgment as matter of law. Hurst v. East Coast Hockey League, 371 S.C. 33, 37, 637 S.E.2d 560, 562 (2006).

In Hurst, we considered the application of assumption of risk in a sports context. The plaintiff was injured when a hockey puck struck him in the face while he was watching a professional hockey game. 371 S.C. at 36, 673 S.E.2d at 561. The plaintiff sued the hockey team for negligence, and we affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the team finding that “a flying puck is inherent to the game of hockey and is also a common, expected, and frequent risk of hockey.” Id. at 38, 673 S.E.2d at 562-63. We held that by attending the hockey [*6] game, the plaintiff implicitly assumed the risks inherent in the sport and the defendant had no duty to protect him from those risks. Id. at 38, 673 S.E.2d at 562.

Appellants argue that Hurst is factually distinguishable, and therefore inapplicable, since the plaintiff in Hurst was a spectator and the game was being played by a professional team. Both of these arguments are unavailing. We acknowledge that the duty owed by a player to a spectator may differ in form to a duty owed to a coparticipant in a sport, but only because a duty owed to a spectator would be greater. Thus, if anything, by playing the game, Cole assumed a greater risk than the plaintiff in Hurst who was a mere spectator.

Furthermore, it is legally inconsequential that Hurst involved a professional sport. Hurst contained no qualifying language to limit its holding to the professional sports context, and we take this opportunity to emphasize that the critical fact is not the level of play, but the nature of the sport itself. See Marchetti v. Kalish, 53 Ohio St. 3d 95, 559 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ohio 1990) ( [HN7] “Whether the activity is organized, unorganized, supervised or unsupervised is immaterial to the standard of liability.“). A risk inherent [*7] in a sport can be found at any level of play, possibly more so in a non-professional arena where the players engage with less skill and athleticism. While Cole was playing a casual game in which the teams did not even keep score, he was still playing softball, which is a contact sport. ² Where a person chooses to participate in a contact sport, whatever the level of play, he assumes the risks inherent in that sport. See Landrum v. Gonzalez, 257 Ill. App. 3d 942, 629 N.E.2d 710, 714, 196 Ill. Dec. 165 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (noting that the relative inquiry into the standard of care is whether the sport is a contact sport, which should be determined “by examining the objective factors surrounding the game itself, not on the subjective expectations of the parties”); Keller v. Mols, 156 Ill. App. 3d 235, 509 N.E.2d 584, 586, 108 Ill. Dec. 888 (Ill. App. Ct. 1987) (“[I]n determining whether a sports participant may be liable for injuries to another player caused by mere negligence, the relevant inquiry is whether the participants were involved in a contact sport, not whether they were organized and coached.”). Therefore by playing softball, Cole assumed those risks that are integral to the sport of softball, which includes the risk of a collision at home plate.

2 Numerous [*8] courts across the country have similarly acknowledged softball is a contact sport. See, e.g., D’Agostino v. Easton Sports, Inc., No. X04HHDCV085026631S, 2010 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3200, 2010 WL 5492731, at *3 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 9, 2010) (unpublished decision) (noting that “softball is a contact sport” (internal citation omitted)); Gonzalez, 629 N.E.2d at 715 (finding [HN8] softball is a contact sport in a case involving an employee pick-up game, noting that “physical contact is part of the game”); Feld v. Borkowski, 790 N.W.2d 72, 79 (Iowa 2010) (concluding that softball is a contact sport and noting that this was the conclusion of other courts that have considered this question); Crawn v. Campo, 136 N.J. 494, 643 A.2d 600, 606 (N.J. 1994) (applying the standard of care applied for contact sports across most states to softball); Licitra v. Inc. Vill. of Garden City, 4 Misc. 3d 1022[A], 798 N.Y.S.2d 345, 2004 NY Slip Op 50993[U], 2004 WL 2034999, at *2 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004) (unpublished opinion) (“The risk of injury is clearly inherent in contact sports such as softball.”); Kalan v. Fox, 187 Ohio App. 3d 687, 2010 Ohio 2951, 933 N.E.2d 337, 341-42 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (noting that physical contact is inevitable in contact sports like softball).

Appellants accordingly contend that Wagner violated a rule of softball [*9] by “running over the catcher during a play at home plate,” and therefore his conduct was outside the scope of the game. However, [HN9] the risk of someone violating a rule of the game is one of the risks taken when engaging in a sport. See Landrum, 629 N.E.2d at 714 (citing Oswald v. Township High Sch. Dist. No. 214, 84 Ill. App. 3d 723, 406 N.E.2d 157, 160, 40 Ill. Dec. 456 (Ill. Ct. App. 1980)) (noting that “rule infractions, deliberate or unintentional, are virtually inevitable in contact games” and thus a different standard of care in such sports is justified). If no one ever violated the rules, then there would be no need for penalty shots in basketball, a penalty box in hockey, or flags on the field in football. Collisions at home plate are common, mainly because catchers often attempt to keep a runner from scoring by blocking the plate with their body. Even if a rule prohibits running into the catcher, that fact alone is insufficient evidence to show the injury resulting from the violation of the rule was not inherent in the sport.

As a final matter, Appellants argue that even if mere negligence may be outside the duty of care, Wagner’s conduct was reckless and therefore outside the scope of risks assumed in the game of [*10] softball. [HN10] “[R]ecklessness or willfulness may be inferred from conduct so grossly negligent that a person of ordinary reason and prudence would then have been conscious of the probability of resulting injury.” Yaun v. Baldridge, 243 S.C. 414, 419, 134 S.E.2d 248, 251 (1964). “[R]ecklessness implies the doing of a negligent act knowingly . . . [or] the conscious failure to exercise due care.” Id. (quoting State v. Rachels, 218 S.C. 1, 8, 61 S.E.2d 249, 252 (1950)). “Due care” can be defined as “that degree of care which a person of ordinary prudence and reason would exercise under the same circumstances.” Berberich v. Jack, 392 S.C. 278, 287, 709 S.E.2d 607, 612 (2011) (quoting Hart v. Doe, 261 S.C. 116, 122, 198 S.E.2d 526, 529 (1973)).

Even assuming, arguendo, that Wagner’s conduct could be characterized as reckless, it was not so reckless as to involve risks outside the scope of softball. [HN11] The likelihood of someone running too fast to stop or playing more aggressively than anticipated is part of the competitive atmosphere of athletics. Almost all contact sports, especially ones that require protective gear as part of their equipment, involve conduct that a reasonably prudent person [*11] would recognize may result in injury. To the extent these risks inhere in the sport involved, we hold some recklessness by copaticipants in a contact sport must be assumed as part of the game. Accordingly, a player assumes the risk of ordinary recklessness committed within the course of the game.

We emphasize that this holding is limited to recklessness committed within the scope of the game and does not include intentional conduct by a coparticipant of a sport, or conduct so reckless as to be outside the scope of the game. ³ Even within the context of a contact sport, players owe reciprocal duties to not intentionally injure each other. Cole does not allege that Wagner’s conduct was intentional nor does he allege such recklessness as would fall outside the scope of the game of softball. Thus, Wagner’s conduct fell within the duty of care he owed to Cole as a coparticipant in the game.

3 While other courts have carved out exceptions for both reckless and intentional conduct, a viable recklessness claim must embrace conduct inconsistent with the game. See Rudzinski v. BB, No. 0:09-1819-JFA, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68471, 2010 WL 2723105 at *3 (D.S.C. 2010) (finding one boy had not acted recklessly in hitting another [*12] boy with the backswing of his golf club because he had not “engaged in conduct so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport of golf”); Knight v. Jewett, 3 Cal. 4th 296, 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 2, 834 P.2d 696, 710 (Cal. 1992) (failing to find defendant liable for recklessness for knocking over plaintiff and stepping on her hand during a game of touch football, stating that defendant’s conduct was not “so reckless as to be totally outside the range of ordinary activity involved in the sport”); Bourque v. Duplechin, 331 So. 2d 40, 42-43 (La. Ct. App. 1976) (finding defendant liable under a theory of recklessness where he had run several feet outside the baseline to collide with the second baseman in an effort to break up a double play and noting that such unsportsmanlike behavior was not incidental to playing softball).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Wagner.

TOAL, C.J., BEATTY and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur. PLEICONES, J., concurring in a separate opinion.

CONCUR BY: PLEICONES

CONCUR

JUSTICE PLEICONES: I concur in the decision to affirm the grant of summary judgment because I would find that Wagner owed no duty to Cole under these [*13] circumstances, relying on the doctrine of implied primary assumption of the risk. Hurst v. East Coast Hockey League, 371 S.C. 33, 637 S.E.2d 560 (2006). I also note that I am not convinced that a game of pick-up softball is a contact sport.

Texas makes it easier to write a release because the law is clear.

Posted: November 21, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Camp for Minors, Case Analysis | Tags: Camp for Minors, Minor, Releases / Waivers, Texas | Leave a comment »

Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

Too bad no one read the law to the Salvation Army in this case.

Summary of the case

Under Texas law, there are two tests to determine if a release is valid; (1) the express negligence doctrine and (2) the conspicuousness requirement test.

“A release that fails to satisfy both of the two requirements is unenforceable as a matter of law.”

The Express Negligence Doctrine is:

Consequently, the release failed the Express Negligence Doctrine.

The Conspicuousness requirement test requires.

With regard to the conspicuousness, requirement test the court stated.

Here is a great example that your release cannot hide the important legal language from anyone signing it.

So Now What?

This decision is a road map on what not to do with a release in Texas.

1. Make sure your release states that it is a release and the person signing it is giving up their legal rights.

3. The release language cannot be hidden. It must be set out in such a way that it is identifiable as something important that the signor needs to know about.

4. All blanks in the document need to be located in one place so it only takes a quick scan to make sure everything is completed properly.

5. Anything that can be completed by the defendant or filled in must be completed by the defendant.

6. Have an attorney that knows and understands your operation and the law affecting your business write your release.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Technorati Tags: Texas,Galvan,Salvation,Army,Dist,LEXIS,Federal,District,Court,Southern,decision,Motion,Summary,Judgment,plaintiff,defendant,defendants,litigation,statute,parents,Camp,Hoblitzelle,injuries,Cynthia,Perez,Permission,Waiver,Form,Residential,Camps,Under,negligence,doctrine,requirement,requirements,consequences,manner,participation,Although,person,Examples,capital,attention,size,remainder,mechanism,Instead,text,Here,example,Charitable,limitation,occurrence,omission,indifference,road,Make,injury,blanks,attorney,life,definition,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,TheSalvationArmy,FederalCourt,SummaryJudgment,CampHoblitzelle,ExpressNegligenceDoctrine,ConspicuousnessRequirement,whether,signor

Windows Live Tags: Texas,Galvan,Salvation,Army,Dist,LEXIS,Federal,District,Court,Southern,decision,Motion,Summary,Judgment,plaintiff,defendant,defendants,litigation,statute,parents,Camp,Hoblitzelle,injuries,Cynthia,Perez,Permission,Waiver,Form,Residential,Camps,Under,negligence,doctrine,requirement,requirements,consequences,manner,participation,Although,person,Examples,capital,attention,size,remainder,mechanism,Instead,text,Here,example,Charitable,limitation,occurrence,omission,indifference,road,Make,injury,blanks,attorney,life,definition,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Page,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Mobile,Site,Outside,Moss,James,Tourism,Risk,Management,Human,Rock,Ropes,Course,Challenge,Summer,Youth,Areas,SkiLaw,OutdoorLaw,OutdoorRecreationLaw,AdventureTravelLaw,TravelLaw,JimMoss,JamesHMoss,AttorneyatLaw,AdventureTourism,RecLaw,RecLawBlog,RecreationLawBlog,RiskManagement,HumanPoweredRecreation,CyclingLaw,BicyclingLaw,FitnessLaw,RopesCourse,ChallengeCourse,SummerCamp,YouthCamps,TheSalvationArmy,FederalCourt,SummaryJudgment,CampHoblitzelle,ExpressNegligenceDoctrine,ConspicuousnessRequirement,whether,signor

Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

Posted: November 21, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Camp for Minors, Legal Case, Texas | Tags: Camp for Minors, Minor, Releases / Waivers | 1 Comment »

Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

To read the analysis of this case see: Texas makes it easier to write a release because the law is clear.

Bruce Galvan, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Salvation Army, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-10-3365

United States District Court For The Southern District Of Texas, Houston Division

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

May 3, 2011, Decided

May 3, 2011, Filed

For Salvation Army, Defendant: Teresa Jones Del Valle, LEAD ATTORNEY, Del Valle Law Firm, P.C., Houston, TX.

JUDGES: Nancy F. Atlas, United States District Judge.

OPINION BY: Nancy F. Atlas

OPINION

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I.FACTUAL BACKGROUND

II.STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

III.RELEASE MOTION

The Court concludes that the Release in this case does not satisfy the express negligence or conspicuousness requirements and, as a result, the Release is not enforceable as a matter of law.

IV.CHARITABLE IMMUNITY MOTION

V.CONCLUSION AND ORDER

ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Release Motion [Doc. # 23] is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ Charitable Immunity Motion [Doc. # 26] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas this 3rd day of May, 2011.

/s/ Nancy F. Atlas

Nancy F. Atlas

United States District Judge

ACA Standards are used by Expert for the Plaintiff in a lawsuit against a Camp

Posted: March 7, 2011 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Camp for Minors, Standards | Tags: Church Camp, Expert Witness, Helmets, Litigation, Standards, Youth Camp | 2 Comments »

This case shows how standards, written by a great organization with good intentions can be used to help, encourage and support lawsuits against its own members.

This case was settled, but it is full of information that everyone who may be a defendant needs to understand.
This case was started by a woman, the plaintiff, more than five years after she had spent a couple of weeks at a summer camp. She was not a camper nor was she working at the camp. She had been invited out by a staff member to give her a break from home. Allegedly, she was (consensually although there may have been statutory issues) sexually assaulted by an older staff member. She sued the staff member and the camp.

The plaintiff, to support her position, hired an expert witness. This is a common practice to support a claim. The expert witness’s job is to prove the defendant camp had acted in violation of the standard of care for camps. The plaintiff’s expert was an ACA standards visitor. The Expert Opinion by the ACA standards visitor was used in the plaintiff’s motion to support a claim that the defendant Camps actions warranted an award of Punitive Damages.

Punitive damages, are damages awarded by the jury above and beyond actual or compensatory damages. The damages are meant to punish the defendant. Punitive damages are not covered by insurance, are not dischargeable in bankruptcy and are in addition to any other damages. The defendant must pay punitive damages, if awarded, no matter what. Consequently, if the court approves the motion to ask for punitive damages in a case, it almost always forces the defendant to settle for fear of having to pay money out of their own pocket. The facts are never thoroughly litigated because they fear of the punitive is overriding. Even if you are 100% right, you may still settle in if punitive damages is a real threat.

The expert for the plaintiff (no relationship to me) was listed as an expert because she was an American Camp Association Accreditation Standards visitor. The experts Resume listed her ACA membership and her ACA Associate Visitor status second only to her education. The “Standards” allegedly violated were the 1998 ACA Accreditation Standards for Camp Programs and Services.

The expert opinion listed five areas that the camp had violated the standard of care for camps. Those areas are listed in the report as Opinion 1 through 5. ACA standards were used to support the expert’s opinion in three of the violations.

The first opinion rendered was the defendant camp violated the then ACA Accreditation Standards – HR-10. HR-10 states no camp staff member is to be under 16 years of age. The plaintiff at the time she was visiting camp was 14.

The first issue is the standard was applied to a fact situation that really had nothing to do with the claim. However, because there was a standard that could be linked to the claim, no matter how remote, the standard was alleged to be violated by the defendant. The plaintiff in this case was not a camp staff member, was not a volunteer, and was not getting paid. She was there for a break from her family. Nevertheless, the standard was applied to show the defendant camp should be held liable for punitive damages.

The second issue is the standard created by the trade association that the camp was a member of, was used to show the camp was negligent. That is just wrong!

Opinion 4 stated that 4 ACA Camp Standards were violated:

HR-11 requires six days of pre-camp staff training of employees.

HR-12 required late hire training for employees.

HR-13 requires implementation of in-service training for employees.

HR-19 requires specific training for staff supervisors to maintain staff performance and address inappropriate staff behavior.

The plaintiff had not received any training. I’ve never seen a camp train any visitor. (Although I’m sure you wish you could sometimes!)

All four “Standards” were violated because the plaintiff did not receive any of the training required by the ACA “Standards”. Again, visitors to camp need to go through training? Late hire camp staff training? Hire usually means someone is employed, consequently, paid, which never occurred here.

Opinion No. 5 stated the defendant camp violated ACA Standard HW-19 and ACA Standard HW-20 on the proper system of health care camp record keeping. This was alleged because a cut the plaintiff received was not recorded in the nurse’s log.

What is so interesting about this issue was there was no allegation that the cut the plaintiff had received was received or treated negligently. Nothing in the lawsuit claimed the way the plaintiff received the cut, the first aid or treatment was negligent. The complaint just stated she received a cut and was taken home by her parents. The suit claimed that an older camp staff employee had sexual relations with the plaintiff.

However, this is a perfect example of how plaintiffs use any violation of the standard, whether or not it has anything to do with the claim, to make the defendant look bad in the eyes of the court and the jury. Good defendants do not violate standards. Here the defendant was obviously bad because the standard was not met.

There is no way that any camp can operate and not violate one of the “Standards” at some time during the camp season! 1998 there were just too many of them. In 2011 there are even more.

To support the allegations made in the plaintiff’s expert report copies of the “Standards” were attached to the report. The following pages were attached to the report:

Cover Page
Title Page
Table of Contents vii
Table of Contents viii
Page 92 HR-10 Staff Age Requirements
Page 93 continuation of HR-10 and HR-11
Page 94 continuation of HR-11, HR-12 and HR-13
Page 97 HR-18 and HR-19
Page 98 continuation of HR-19 and HR-20
Page 67 HW-19 Recordkeeping
Page 68 HW-20 and HW-21

Why only those pages? Because those are the important pages the plaintiff wants the judge to see. There are limits to how big motions can be how many pages the judge will read, pages, etc. Those are all valid arguments and are real for only putting in the important documents as exhibits.

However “standards” are written with disclaimers and limitations and definitions, none of which are ever given to the court. The court is never shown that there may be limitations to what the “Standards” mean or how they are applied.

Even if those were supplied, the court must apply the definitions that are in the statute or by law first and then as used in the community or industry second. See Words: You cannot change a legal definition.

Trade Associations write standards with the mistaken believe that the plaintiff’s experts and the court will apply the standards exactly the way the standards are intended to be written. The facts are once the standards are printed the trade association loses all control no matter how many pages of disclaimers are put in the information.

So the judge in this case, who is pressed for time, reads the report and has a list of standards that are violated. A standard is the optimum word. The camp was below the minimum level of acting or not acting that was set by the camps own trade association. That is all that is needed to keep the case moving forward. Standards were violated. Therefore, there may be negligence. That must go to a jury, there must be a trial and the cost to the defendant (and its insurance company) climbs even higher. (Consequently, your premiums increase also. See Insurance 101 if you don’t fully understand this.)

Even if the additional documentation is put into evidence, the legal definition of the words is going to be used, not how the word is defined in the standards book. See Words: You cannot change a legal definition.

Nor does the court have the opportunity to delve into the standards to find out that most of them are not really standards but suggestions, ideas or just good practices. However, by identifying the book as standard there is a legal definition applied to the work that is just as dangerous as it may be helpful.

Some might say that if the camp was bad then lawsuits get rid of bad camps (or other defendants). However, that never works. This camp did not close up. In fact, in my opinion, this camp was sued because it tried to help out a confused young woman. The end effect is there will be no more attempts to help anyone in the future.

The only real consequence of this lawsuit was the amount of time that spent working on the case. Some money might have moved between the parties, and the attorneys and expert witnesses made money.

Let’s look at the opinion no 1 of the plaintiff’s expert witness. The standard says that employees should not be under the age of 16. Most camps are run by families. Many times there may be two or three generations at the camp. If a staff member sends their 15 year old son to the tool shed to get a tool and in the process the son accidentally knocks over a camper, injuring the camper, the camp has violated that standard. No 16 year olds should be hired by a camp. However, he wasn’t hired. Well, we’ve seen how that does not work, and he was working, providing a benefit for the camp.

The camp has a couple of options.

1. Not allow their children at camp until they are 16.

2. Violate the standard.

You are going to take your kids to camp and have them play video games and watch TV or are you going to put them to work. If you put them to work before they reach the age of 16 you are violating a standard created by a trade association for your benefit.

Say you are an organization that works to install leadership, training and teamwork into the youth. It is common in your organization for the youth to be responsible for other members. (Sound like any organization you know?) Your camps are staffed predominantly by youth because of the training and goals of the organization. Every single one of those camps is in violation of the standard HR-10 (as it was in 1998).
If your youth organization is focused in leadership training and does that by helping youth move up to more advanced and important leadership positions, the entire program will fail if you say to the 14 year olds, wait two years until you turn 16 to move up to the next level, camp staff.

These are just two scenarios where the standard set forth in HR-10 (which is almost identical in the latest version) can be used to sue a camp every single day of the year. However, in both scenarios, nothing has been done wrong other than taking your kid to work and following your youth program guidelines.

Are all standards bad? No, standards for things are great. Concrete “acts” the same way every day. A fight with a spouse, traffic on the way to work, rain, none of this affects concrete. It is going to support XX thousands of pounds of weight. Standards for things work. People and how people operate are subject to millions of things, weather and other people. We don’t’ react the same way. We aren’t affected the same way. We don’t respond the same way, who can you write something down that says we will, no matter what.

For other articles about standards see:

This is how a standard in the industry changes…..but….

Can a Standard Impede Inventions?

Playgrounds will be flat soon

Words: You cannot change a legal definition

Trade Association Standards sink a Summer Camp when plaintiff uses them to prove Camp was negligent

The motion where the expert witness’ report was filed is here.

Expert Witness Report

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Twitter: RecreationLaw

Facebook: Rec.Law.Now

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Blog: http://www.recreation-law.com

Keywords: #recreationlaw, #@recreationlaw, #cycling.law #fitness.law, #ski.law, #outside.law, #recreation.law, #recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #ACA, #American Camp Association, #standards,
Technorati Tags: Standards,Expert,Plaintiff,lawsuit,Camp,intentions,lawsuits,information,defendant,woman,camper,member,violation,visitor,Opinion,Camps,Punitive,Damages,jury,insurance,bankruptcy,addition,money,threat,relationship,American,Association,Accreditation,experts,Resume,membership,Associate,status,education,Programs,Services,areas,violations,fact,situation,employees,implementation,supervisors,performance,behavior,Although,Again,visitors,Late,Hire,Standard,system,health,allegation,treatment,complaint,parents,employee,relations,example,plaintiffs,defendants,Here,allegations,Cover,Page,Title,Table,Contents,Staff,Requirements,continuation,arguments,disclaimers,limitations,definitions,statute,industry,Words,definition,Trade,Associations,negligence,cost,premiums,documentation,suggestions,Some,consequence,attorneys,Most,families,Many,generations,tool,options,Violate,leadership,teamwork,youth,Sound,goals,scenarios,version,guidelines,Concrete,spouse,People,millions,Impede,Inventions,Playgrounds,Summer,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,five,three,olds
Windows Live Tags: Standards,Expert,Plaintiff,lawsuit,Camp,intentions,lawsuits,information,defendant,woman,camper,member,violation,visitor,Opinion,Camps,Punitive,Damages,jury,insurance,bankruptcy,addition,money,threat,relationship,American,Association,Accreditation,experts,Resume,membership,Associate,status,education,Programs,Services,areas,violations,fact,situation,employees,implementation,supervisors,performance,behavior,Although,Again,visitors,Late,Hire,Standard,system,health,allegation,treatment,complaint,parents,employee,relations,example,plaintiffs,defendants,Here,allegations,Cover,Page,Title,Table,Contents,Staff,Requirements,continuation,arguments,disclaimers,limitations,definitions,statute,industry,Words,definition,Trade,Associations,negligence,cost,premiums,documentation,suggestions,Some,consequence,attorneys,Most,families,Many,generations,tool,options,Violate,leadership,teamwork,youth,Sound,goals,scenarios,version,guidelines,Concrete,spouse,People,millions,Impede,Inventions,Playgrounds,Summer,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,five,three,olds
WordPress Tags: Standards,Expert,Plaintiff,lawsuit,Camp,intentions,lawsuits,information,defendant,woman,camper,member,violation,visitor,Opinion,Camps,Punitive,Damages,jury,insurance,bankruptcy,addition,money,threat,relationship,American,Association,Accreditation,experts,Resume,membership,Associate,status,education,Programs,Services,areas,violations,fact,situation,employees,implementation,supervisors,performance,behavior,Although,Again,visitors,Late,Hire,Standard,system,health,allegation,treatment,complaint,parents,employee,relations,example,plaintiffs,defendants,Here,allegations,Cover,Page,Title,Table,Contents,Staff,Requirements,continuation,arguments,disclaimers,limitations,definitions,statute,industry,Words,definition,Trade,Associations,negligence,cost,premiums,documentation,suggestions,Some,consequence,attorneys,Most,families,Many,generations,tool,options,Violate,leadership,teamwork,youth,Sound,goals,scenarios,version,guidelines,Concrete,spouse,People,millions,Impede,Inventions,Playgrounds,Summer,Leave,Recreation,Edit,Gmail,Twitter,RecreationLaw,Facebook,Outdoor,Adventure,Travel,Blog,Keywords,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,Human,five,three,olds

Berlin v. Nassau County Council, Boy Scouts of America, 229 A.D.2d 414, 645 N.Y.S.2d 90

Posted: October 25, 2010 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Boy Scouts of America (BSA), Camp for Minors, Legal Case, New York, Volunteers | Tags: Boy Scout, Boy Scouts of America, Brian Thomson, Florida, Nassau County New York, New York, New York City, United States | Leave a comment »

Rita Berlin et al., Respondents,

vs.

Nassau County Council, Boy Scouts of America et al., Defendants, and Hugh Brickley, Appellant.

95-05684

Supreme Court Of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department

229 A.D.2d 414, 645 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. Decision

July 8, 1996, Decided

Devitt, Spellman, Barrett, Callahan, Leyden & Kenny, LLP., Smithtown, N.Y. (L. Kevin Sheridan of counsel), for appellant. Hershman & Leicher, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Harold M. Hershman of counsel), for respondents.

Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

{*414} Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint and cross claims insofar as asserted against the appellant are dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

Brian Thomson acquired a slingshot from a store in Florida while on a trip with his Boy Scout troop. The appellant Hugh Brickley and the defendants Kenneth Bistyga and Philip Lembo were the chaperones for the trip. Brickley immediately confiscated the slingshot and did not return it to Brian until after the trip when he left Brian with his parents in Delaware. Approximately one week later, after the Thomson family had returned to New York, the infant plaintiff Daniel Berlin was injured when he and Brian were playing with the slingshot in Daniel’s backyard.

Any duty on the part of Brickley to supervise or control the activities of Brian terminated when he returned the child to {*415} his parents‘ custody (see, Purdy v Public Adm’r of County of Westchester, 72 N.Y.2d 1, 8-9; see also, Pratt v Robinson, 39 N.Y.2d 554, 560; Griffith v City of New York, 123 A.D.2d 830, 832). Even assuming that Brickley was negligent in returning the slingshot to Brian, the alleged negligent supervision by Brian‘s parents, who were fully aware that he possessed and was using the slingshot, was a superseding intervening cause which attenuated any negligence on the part of Brickley from the ultimate injury to Daniel (see, Nolechek v Gesuale, 46 N.Y.2d 332, 338-339; Elardo v Town of Oyster Bay, 176 A.D.2d 912, 914). Consequently, Brickley’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Adult volunteer responsibility ends when the minor is delivered back to his parents.

Posted: October 25, 2010 | Author: Recreation Law | Filed under: Boy Scouts of America (BSA), Camp for Minors, Case Analysis, New York, Volunteers | Tags: Boy Scout, Boy Scouts of America, BSA, Parental Responsibility, Scout Troop, Scouting, Slingshot, Trauma, Volunteer Responsibility | Leave a comment »

Thank heavens!

Berlin v. Nassau County Council, Boy Scouts of America, 229 A.D.2d 414, 645 N.Y.S.2d 90

A youth was on a trip with a Scout troop which is a program of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA). Sometime on the trip, the minor bought a slingshot. The slingshot was confiscated by a volunteer leader on the trip. At the end of the trip, the slingshot was given to the parents of the minor.

Later the minor was playing with the slingshot with another youth, and the other youth was injured by the slingshot. Either the minor had gotten the slingshot somehow or the parents had given the slingshot back to the minor, although this was not specifically stated in the opinion.

The parents of the minor injured by the slingshot, the plaintiffs, sued the volunteer adult leaders of the trip for the minor’s injuries.

The court in a succinct and short decision held the adult volunteers were not liable for the minor’s injuries. The basis for the decision was the action of the volunteer in giving the minor back to the parents was a superseding intervening act, which stops the claim.

A superseding act, eliminates the relationship between the damages which caused the injury and the duty owed. That means negligence cannot be proven. The damages are not proximate to the duty owed. Negligence has four parts, all which must be proven:

A duty
Breach of the duty
Injury
Damages proximately caused by the breach of duty.

The court’s decision says the fourth step cannot be proven because of the superseding act. The parents taking control of their child was an intervening act which the court said did not tie the duty and the damages to together legally. Stated another way, there was no relationship between the act of the volunteer and the injury received by the minor.

The plaintiffs seem to argue that the adult volunteer should not have given the slingshot back to the parents. However, the slingshot was a possession, a piece of property owned by the minor and as such, his parents. The slingshot was given back to the owners as required by the law.

So?

The relationship between a parent and a volunteer who is spending his or her time with the child is tenuous. As a volunteer you must be clear what your responsibilities are and are not going to be, as well as when that responsibility ends. It does not need to be so formal. It can simply be in the trip information that the kids have to be at the church by 7:00 PM and parents must pick their kids up Sunday at 2:00 PM at the church.

Most times, volunteers worry about injuries to the minor as a liability issue. There are other issues that can come up that you should be prepared to deal with.

Search and Rescue costs if a minor is lost can be substantial. (See No Charge for Rescue). Damages to property or injury to other minors can create liability for the adult volunteer responsible. A forest fire started by a minor can be costly. Even though most state courts will not allow a parent to release the claims of a minor for injuries, courts will allow releases or contracts where the parent agrees to pay for other claims the minor may create.

You can inform the parent and make sure they understand (meaning a written document) that they are responsible for any damages the minor may create for a reason other than injuries to themselves. I would include damages for the minor’s injuries on a different form. You do not want the court to throughout one release for the minor’s injuries when what you needed was protection for the damages done for the minors.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

#recreation-law.com, #outdoor law, #recreation law, #outdoor recreation law, #adventure travel law, #law, #travel law, #Jim Moss, #James H. Moss, #attorney at law, #tourism, #adventure tourism, #rec-law, #rec-law blog, #recreation law, #recreation law blog, #risk management, #Human Powered, #human powered recreation,# cycling law, #bicycling law, #fitness law, #recreation-law.com, #backpacking, #hiking, #Mountaineering, #ice climbing, #rock climbing, #ropes course, #challenge course, #summer camp, #camps, #youth camps, #skiing, #ski areas, #negligence, #BSA, #Boy Scouts of America, #youth, #No Charge for Rescue, #volunteer, #youth leader, #youth, #minor, Technorati Tags: Adult,parents,recreation,adventure,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,youth,areas,negligence,Scouts,America,Charge,Rescue,leader,blog
Windows Live Tags: Adult,parents,recreation,adventure,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,youth,areas,negligence,Scouts,America,Charge,Rescue,leader,blog
WordPress Tags: Adult,parents,recreation,adventure,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,youth,areas,negligence,Scouts,America,Charge,Rescue,leader,blog
Blogger Labels: Adult,parents,recreation,adventure,Moss,James,attorney,tourism,management,youth,areas,negligence,Scouts,America,Charge,Rescue,leader,blog

It's not what I write, It's what you Learn

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Besides top bunk of a bunk bed is just not a dangerous instrumentality.

So?

So Now What?

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Buck, v. Camp Wilkes, Inc. 906 So. 2d 778; 2004 Miss. App. LEXIS 1141

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Bernstein v Wysoki et al., 77 A.D.3d 241; 907 N.Y.S.2d 49; 2010 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6579; 2010 NY Slip Op 6475; 244 N.Y.L.J. 43

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Too bad no one read the law to the Salvation Army in this case.

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Cole v. Boy Scouts of America, 2011 S.C. LEXIS 383

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Galvan, et al., v. The Salvation Army, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47257

To read the analysis of this case see: Texas makes it easier to write a release because the law is clear.

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

This case shows how standards, written by a great organization with good intentions can be used to help, encourage and support lawsuits against its own members.

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Thank heavens!

So?

What do you think? Leave a comment.

Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Google+

Follow Blog via Email

Catagories

Blog Stats

Twylah