In the case of Piazza v. Young, No. 4:19-cv-00128
(M.D. Pa. Aug. 27, 2019 Brann, J.), the court addressed various Motions to
Dismiss and Motions to Stay in a civil lawsuit arising out of the fatal
injuries sustained by a student at Penn State allegedly as a result of hazing
activities in a fraternity. The court
granted the motions in part and denied the motions in part.
Of note, with respect to those fraternity brothers
Defendants who were under the age of 21, the court allowed the claims of the
Plaintiff to proceed against those underaged Defendants under the Plaintiff’s
theory of recovery to hold the Defendants liable for breaching an alleged
protective duty that the Defendants, as fraternity members, allegedly owed to
the Plaintiff’s son, a fraternity pledge.
Judge Matthew W. Brann M.D. Pa. |
In this regard, Judge Brann refused to apply the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Kapres v. Heller, 640 A.2d 888
(Pa. 1994) in as an expansive manner as requested by those moving Defendants
who were under the age of 21. Under the
Kapres case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court generally ruled that
individuals under the age of 21 cannot be held liable under the social host
doctrine to a guest or third party injured on the premises relative to the
service of alcohol.
The court in this Piazza case refused to read the Kapres
case as immunizing the fraternity Defendants in this case from alleged
liability for their otherwise allegedly wrongful conduct that involved the provision
of alcohol. See Op. at
16-18. The court also noted that an
expansive reading of the Kapres decision in the context of this case
would not serve to further the social utility of the Pennsylvania statutes
against hazing activities.
However, the court did otherwise note that the Plaintiff’s
separate claim for negligence per se relative to the service of alcohol
asserted against the fraternity Defendants who were under the age of 21 should
be dismissed under the rationale of the Kapres case.
This Opinion is also notable for the court’s review of the
law pertaining to allegations of breach and causation, hazing allegations,
allegations of civil conspiracy and claims of battery and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
The court ruled that those defendants who acted to aid
plaintiff after his accident can be liable under Restatement §§323, 324A for
negligently failing to seek professional medical help. However, the court found that other defendants
who did not act to aid the Plaintiff could not be found to be liable for
failing to render any aid as there is no cognizable duty under these facts to
rescue in the first place.
Judge Brann also found that a negligence per se claim based
upon an alleged violation of Pennsylvania’s anti-hazing statute is a viable
claim.
The Plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress
claim was dismissed under the rationale that an alleged attempted cover up of
the incident did not amount to an intent to inflict emotional distress on
anyone.
The court additionally denied the Motion to Dismiss the
claims of punitive damages asserted in this matter. The court noted that it has routinely
declined to dismiss punitive damages demands at the Motion to Dismiss stage of
the case and prior to discovery.
Judge Brann also addressed separate Motions to Stay filed by
several Defendants who have been criminally charged arising out of the same
incident.
On this issue, the court reviewed the six (6) factors
required under the case of Barker v. Kane, 49 F.Supp. 3rd
521, 525-26 (M.D. Pa. 2016) and granted this in part and denied it in
part. Essentially, the court denied the
request to stay the matter but crafted the remedy that entitles certain
Defendants to exercise their right against self-incrimination. The court noted that certain Defendants
would not be required to answer any
pleadings or discovery or participate in any depositions that would implicate
their Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination by engaging in such
pleadings and discovery.
Anyone wishing to review this decision by Judge Brann may click this LINK.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.