The court reasoned that a college did not have any duty under the law of negligence with respect to activities that were conducted off-campus and operated by an independent contractor. The court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that, since the camp was a mandatory extra-curricular activity required by the college, a duty must have been created.
The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s claims of liability given that there was no allegations that the operator of the camp was negligently selected.
The court additionally emphasized that no employee of the Defendant college was supervising the Plaintiff at the time of the accident. Rather, the record revealed that all of the supervision was provided by the independent contractor event operator.
Anyone wishing to review this Opinion, may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith Law Firm. Please be sure to check out Attorney Beck’s excellent blog, the Drug and Device Law Blog (click HERE).