Summary Judgment Granted in Water Park Ride Under "No-Duty" Rule

In the case of Mantilla v. CMBK Resort Holdings, LLC, No. 5780-Civil-2023 (C.P. Monroe Co. April 25, 2025 Williamson, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case in which the Plaintiff alleged injuries from a water park ride during which the raft either flipped or the Plaintiff fell from it, resulting in injuries to the Plaintiff.

After reviewing the applicable law, which included the fact that, generally speaking, purveyors of theaters, amusement parks, or sports facilities have a “no-duty” rule to protect a party from injuries so long as the injuries suffered arose from a risk that was “common, frequent, and expected” of the situation.

The court ruled that, based upon the record before it, the Plaintiff has failed to allege or establish any conduct on the part of the Defendants that was not an inherent risk of utilizing a water slide.

In this matter, the Plaintiff admitted at her deposition that her raft flipped due to a sudden change in the water pressure, causing her to strike her shoulder on the side of the slide itself. The court noted that this is an inherent risk of water slides, where unexpected changes in water flow and the possibility of body parts colliding with the hard surface of the tube.

Given that the Plaintiff failed to show any other evidence of negligence and given that the Defendant had no duty to protect the Plaintiff from the “common, frequent, and expected” dangers of water slides, the court granted summary judgment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (July 10, 2025).

Summary Judgment Granted in Amusement Ride Case

White Water Landing Log Flume - Dorney Park

In the case of Tepox v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., No. 2024-CV-2312 (C.P. Lehigh Co. May 16, 2025 Pavlack, J.), the court granted summary judgment in a case where a Plaintiff, while at an amusement park, was hit by water while walking over a bridge built over a log flume water ride 

The court noted that the bridge was designed for people to both observe the ride and to get wet by the splash the ride creates.

The court ruled that the no-duty rule/inherent risk doctrine applicable to amusement park accidents supported the entry of summary judgment in this case. 

The court noted that spectators and patrons assume certain risks when participating in amusements such that no duty exists on the part of the Defendant to protect against those risks.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Federal Court Addresses Exception to "No-Duty" Rule In a Slip and Fall Case

In the case of Neyman v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., No. 2:23-CV-00226-WSS (W.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2024 Stickman, J.), the court denied a Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a slip and fall case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to recover for injuries that the Plaintiff sustained when he slipped and fell on a wet and muddy ramp while unloading a forklift from a tractor trailer.

The defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that it had not duty to the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff knew of the dangerous conditions on the ramp and chose to voluntarily walk on the ramp and was injured as a result. Essentially, the Defendants were arguing that a “no-duty” rule arises in favor of a Defendant when a danger is known and obvious to a Plaintiff and the Plaintiff chooses to voluntarily encounter that danger.

The Plaintiffs argued that the second clause of §343A, along with comment F of that Section under the Restatement (Second) of Torts created an exception to the “no-duty” rule. The Plaintiff more specifically argued that, even if a danger is known and obvious to a Plaintiff, a Defendant may still be liable if the Defendant should expect that a business invitee will not protect themselves against the danger due to being distracted at the time of the incident.

After reviewing the law as applied to the facts presented, the court held that, although it was clear that the Plaintiff knew about the dangerous condition of the ramp based upon the Plaintiff’s testimony that the ramp was indeed muddy and wet, the court otherwise found that issues of fact remained as to whether the Defendant should have anticipated a harm to the Plaintiff despite the Plaintiff’s knowledge of the ramp conditions.

There was evidence in the case that, prior to the Plaintiff’s fall, an employee of the Defendant had slipped on the ramp. Accordingly, the court noted that a jury could reasonably determine not only that the Defendant knew that the ramp was slippery, but that its slippery condition could lead to workers falling on the ramp. The court stated that it would be up to a jury to determine whether, despite the Plaintiff’s knowledge of the dangerous condition on the ramp, the Defendant should have anticipated a harm despite such knowledge on the part of the Plaintiff or the fact that the danger was obvious.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Garrett L. Trettel and Attorney Brendan B. Lupetin of the Pittsburgh, PA law firm of Lupetin & Unatin for bringing this case to my attention.

Source of image:  Photo by Ace Cranes on www.pexels.com.

No Duty of Care Created by Simply Giving a Thumbs Up To Proceed With Cutting Down a Tree

In the case of Miller v. Kinley, No. 22-00349 (C.P. Lyc. Co. June 18, 2024 Carlucci, J.), the court granted a Defendant summary judgment based on a finding that simply given a Plaintiff a “thumbs up” signal during the course of cutting down a tree did not create a duty of care by that Defendant when the tree that the Plaintiff was cutting fell on the Plaintiff.

In this case, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants had granted him permission to cut down trees on their property. The Plaintiff alleged that one Defendant, who had transported the Plaintiff to the property, agreed to assist in the removal of the trees by acting as a spotter and a safety coordinator.

The court noted that the Plaintiff failed to support this allegation with his deposition testimony.

The Defendant at issue filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The court found that the Defendant was entitled to summary judgment because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to any duty owed by that Defendant to the Plaintiff. The court found that no reasonable jury could find that, by giving the Plaintiff a “thumbs up” signal, that Defendant assumed as duty of care to ensure that the Plaintiff safely cut down the tree and stay out of its way as it fell.

Judge Carlucci noted that, under the common law of Pennsylvania, absent a special relationship between the parties, there is no duty to control the conduct of a third party to protect another from harm.


Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert” Law.com (Aug. 22, 2024).

Superior Court Refuses To Create a General Duty of Care To Prevent the Transmission of Contagious Diseases Such as COVID-19

In the non-precedential case of Reish v. Visiting Angels, No. 2924 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Sept. 21, 2023 Nichols, J., Olson, J., and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Nichols, J.)[Non-precedential], the Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s sustaining Preliminary Objections dismissing a case after finding that there is no general duty of care among the general public to avoid transmitting contagious diseases such as COVID-19.

The court noted that, while medical professionals may owe a duty of care to third persons to advise a patient to take precautions against spreading contagious diseases, that duty does not extend to non-medical laypersons.

The Superior Court noted that negligence cannot be invoked to create a duty where one does not exist in the first place. The court also noted that it was reluctant to create new affirmative duties under the circumstances presented in this case.

The court also noted that the risk of spreading illnesses while providing services to the elderly is a foreseeable risk. The appellate court asserted that to otherwise impose a duty in this regard would require a myriad of precautions without clear guidance from existing law.

Accordingly, the Superior Court noted that it would improper for it to treat COVID-19-related mask mandates as establishing personal liability against individuals.

The court otherwise noted that such policy determinations in this context are generally not within the purview of the judiciary and are best determined by other branches of government.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I thank Attorney James A. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.

Defendants Holding Estate Sale Owed No Duties To Motorists Involved in Motor Vehicle Accident

In the case of Kistler v. Dietrich, No. 1694 MDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Sept. 22, 2023 Panella, J. Stevens, P.J.E., Murray, J.) (Op. by Murray, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held, in a motor vehicle accident case, that the trial court properly dismissed the Plaintiff’s negligence action against Defendants who were conducting an estate sale on their property after finding that the Defendants did not owe any duty to the Plaintiff to direct traffic on the road or to restrict legal, on-street parking.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged that he was injured in an accident while riding his motorcycle near the Defendant’s residence at the time of an estate sale. The Plaintiff alleged that many members of the public were attending the sale and had parked on the side of the road and had thereby allegedly created visual limitations and deficiencies for motorists in the area. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants had acted negligently in creating an unreasonable risk of harm for motorists in the area.

After discovery was completed, the Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff had failed to show that the Defendants owed any duty to the Plaintiff.  The Defendants asserted that they owed no duty to the Plaintiff to direct traffic. The Defendants additionally asserted that they had no duty to provide off-street parking for the sale. The Defendants otherwise noted that, in any event, parking was permitted on both sides of the street in the area of their property.

The Defendants additionally asserted that the Plaintiff did not attend the sale and there was no evidence that anyone connected to the accident attended the sale.

As noted, the court affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 10, 2023).

Issues of Fact Preclude Entry of Summary Judgment in Case of Slip and Fall Sustained by Ice Skater

In the case of Murphy v. Pines, No. 3:20-CV-00320 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2022 Saporito, M.J.), the court denied summary judgment after finding genuine issues of material fact existed on whether the Plaintiff, an experienced skater, was entitled to a recovery when she slipped and fell while skating on ice.  The court noted that the Plaintiff had never before skated on synthetic ice.   

In his Opinion, Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., noted that, while falling while ice skating is an inherent risk of that activity, the risks of alleged damaged surfaces are not.  The court found that the issue of assumption of the risk was for the jury to decide under the conflicting facts presented in this case.   

The court also addressed the “no duty” rule.  While the court noted that the “no duty” rule precludes liability for injuries from risk that are common, frequent, expected, and inherent in a sporting activity, and while that rule can apply when the assumption of the risk doctrine does not, the court found that issues of fact in this case prevented the entry of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant.

Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
M.D. Pa.

Judge Saporito additionally addressed separate arguments raised relative to the scope and impact of the release that was signed by the Plaintiff prior to engaging in the ice skating activity at the facility.  

The court noted that the release language was boilerplate and was only located on a rental receipt.  The language was not conspicuous and was never explained to the Plaintiff or even brought to the Plaintiff’s attention.   As such, given these issues, the court ruled that the issue of whether the Release was effective to preclude a recovery would be left for the jury’s consideration. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention. 

Source of top image: Photo by Efrem Efre on www.pexels.com.

Court Finds That Plaintiff's Claims Against College May Move Forward

 In the case of Baumbach v. Lafayette College, 2022 Pa. Super. 40 (Pa. Super. March 4, 2022 Panella, P.J. Dubow, J., and McCaffery, J.) (Op. by Dubow, J.), the court addressed whether a college owed a duty to a Plaintiff’s decedent who was struck and killed by a drunk driver while the student was walking along a roadway as she returned to the college from crew practice.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant college and its agents breached a duty of care owed to the Plaintiff’s decedent and also intentionally misrepresented safety threats posed to crew members walking along the road to and from practice.

The trial court had granted the college Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings after finding that the Plaintiff had failed to establish that the college Defendants owed any duty to the Plaintiff’s decedent. The trial court additionally found that the Plaintiffs’ decedent did not justifiably rely upon the college Defendants’ alleged representations regarding the safety of walking or running along the roadway in question.

On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed both trial court findings.

With regards to the duty of care, the Superior Court noted that a party may, through his or her affirmative act, assume a duty to exercise reasonable care in the performance of the conduct. In this matter, the court stated the Plaintiff’s Complaint alleged numerous affirmative actions taken by the college with respect to the safety of the college students at the crew practice facility. As such, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that the Plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case that the college Defendants undertook to act for the Plaintiffs’ decedent’s safety.

The Superior Court also ruled that the Plaintiffs also alleged numerous facts to support their intentional misrepresentation claim. 

For example, the court noted that the Plaintiff had alleged that the coaches had misrepresented that the roadway was safe for the team members’ use as pedestrians, while also periodically advising team members to run single-file and to keep an eye out for cars. The Plaintiffs had alleged that the coaches made these representations either knowing that the statements were false or without adequate knowledge about the safety conditions along the roadway while allegedly professing to have such knowledge. 

The Plaintiffs additionally asserted that the coaches knew that there had been a prior fatal pedestrian accident on the same roadway of the vicinity of the boat house the summer before the Plaintiff’s decedent had enrolled at Lafayette College. 

For these reasons, and other reasons, the court found that the Plaintiff’s allegations that the college Defendants’ alleged intentional misrepresentations were properly stated by the Plaintiff to establish a sufficient prima facie claim that the decedent had justifiably relied upon the college Defendants’ representations regarding the safety of the roadway.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source of image:  Photo by Run 4 FFWPU on www.pexels.com.

Summary Judgment Denied in Football Sidelines Injury Case

In the case of Cantafio v. Valley View School District, No. 2018-CV-2991 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 13, 2021 Gibbons, J.), Judge James A. Gibbons of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the Defendant, Valley View School District, in a case in which the Plaintiff's decedent was standing along the sidelines of a high school football game and was hit by players who spilled onto the sidelines during a play, which caused the decedent to be propelled backwards, as a result of which he ultimately fell backwards and struck his head on an asphalt surface which bordered the playing field. 

The decedent unfortunately suffered injuries which ultimately resulted in his death approximately ten (10) days later. The decedent’s son was on the stand with the decedent’s grandson and witnessed the incident.

The Defendant, Valley View School District, offered several reasons in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. The school district argued that, as a political subdivision, it was entitled to immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. 

The school district Defendant also asserted that it was entitled to judgment under the law of the no-duty doctrine. 

The Defendant additionally asserted that it was entitled to summary judgment under assumption of risk doctrine and/or that the Plaintiff had failed to establish that the Defendant was negligent as a matter of law. 

On the claims asserted by the decedent's son, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff had failed to put forth facts sufficient to support a cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

The court addressed each of these arguments in term and denied all of them.  In the end, the school district’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied.

In his Opinion, Judge Gibbons provides a thorough update on the current status of the law surrounding the no-duty doctrine and the immunity provided under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act.

Judge Gibbons also confirmed that the assumption of risk doctrine remains a valid defense under Pennsylvania law. After outlining the elements of that defense, the court found that the Defendant had not offered sufficient proof to compel the application of that doctrine. The court emphasized that there remains a “reluctance under Pennsylvania law to find that the assumption of the risk applicable unless it is quite clear that the specific risk that occasioned injury was both fully appreciated and voluntarily accepted.” [citation omitted] [emphasis in original citation deleted here]

With regard to the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress asserted on behalf of the decedent’s son, the court outlined the current elements of that law and found that issues of act prevented the entry of summary judgment.


Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Judge Gibbons Addresses Multiple Issues With Respect to Injury Sustained On Sidelines of Football Game

In the case of Cantafio v. Valley View School District, No. 2018-CV-2991 (C.P. Lacka. Co. May 29, 2020, Gibbons, J.), Judge James A. Gibbons of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas addressed several different issues in a wrongful death and survival action arising from an accident that occurred during a high school football game.

According to the Opinion, a play spilled onto the sideline, as a result of which the adult Plaintiff, who was standing along the sidelines as a team statistician, was struck and caused to fall backwards and land violently on a nearby asphalt surface. The Plaintiff sustained ultimately fatal injuries.

The decedent’s estate filed suit alleging negligence in the design and construction of the high school football stadium. The Plaintiff’s also asserted claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death, and a survival action against multiple Defendants. The original Defendants joined in certain Additional Defendants.

The court was faced with various Preliminary Objections raised by the Defendants with respect to both the Complaint and the Joinder Complaint.

Of note, the court addressed the Defendant high school’s Preliminary Objection asserting that he Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed because the Plaintiff did not provide written notice of the incident to the school district within six (6) months of the incident was required by the law for claims of against the school. The court overruled this objection since the high school admitted that, although formal notice was not provided by the Plaintiff, the school was obviously aware of, and had actual notice of, the incident giving rise to the lawsuit. As such, this case was held to fall under an exception to the six (6) month requirement under the statute since the high school had actual notice of the event.

The court also rejected the high school’s claim that the Plaintiffs’ Complaint should be dismissed under the “No Duty” doctrine given that the decedent knowingly exposed himself to foreseeable injuries which could result from standing on the sideline of a football field, a few feet from where the game was taken place.

While the court noted that the “No Duty” rule provides that a Defendant owes no duty of care to warn, protect, or ensure against risk which are “common, frequent and expected” and “inherent” in an activity, the court overruled this Preliminary Objection after concluding that the risk faced by the Plaintiff, which was the risk of death as a result of a collision with players, which caused the Plaintiff to strike his head on an asphalt curb located near the field of play, was not a risk that could be considered to be common, frequent, or expected to be inherent in the game of football.

The court also overruled the high school’s Preliminary Objection asserting that the school was immune from liability under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act as a local agency as defined by the act. The court stated that a Preliminary Objection is a procedurally improper effort to claim immunity as such claims must be raised under a responsive pleading as “new matter” given that immunity is an affirmative defense under Pa. R.C.P. 1030.

On yet another separate issue addressed in this Opinion, Judge Gibbons also followed the rule in Lackawanna County with respect to claims of recklessness by denying the Preliminary Objections asserted by the Defendant to such claims after finding that, under Pa. R.C.P. 1019, allegations of recklessness, as an allegation pertaining to the state of mind of the actor, can be pled generally.

The court also denied Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiffs’ claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress based upon the fact that the decedent’s son was in the audience at the football game and observed his father’s accident. The court overruled the Preliminary Objections in this regard after finding that the Plaintiff pled sufficient facts to move forward on that claim.

The court also overruled various Preliminary Objections filed by the Additional Defendants after finding that the Joinder Complaints had pled sufficient facts to support the claims of contribution and/or indemnity.

The court also rejected Preliminary Objections by one (1) Defendant who had asserted that it was entitled to have the claims against it arbitrated under an arbitration agreement entered into by that Defendant with the high school Defendant. The court overruled this position after finding that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable in this action where the underlying dispute involved several entities that were not a party to the agreement.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


I send thanks to Attorney Harry McGrath of the Kingston, Pennsylvania law firm of Fellerman & Ciarimboli for bringing this decision to my attention.

Assumption of Risk Doctrine Supports Summary Judgment in Dirt Bike Accident case

In the case of Hawkins v. Switchback Mx., No. 2:16-CV-1719 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2018 Connor, J.), the court granted summary judgment in favor of a Defendant after ruling, by statute, that an operator of an off-road vehicle riding area has no duty to protect the riders from the well-known risks inherent to the activity, such as collisions and falls.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff injured himself when he made an unsuccessful jump on his dirt bike on an indoor track.  The Plaintiff was noted to have a decade of experience.

This court also affirmed the continuing validity of the assumption of risk doctrine by finding that the Plaintiff’s participation in this sport constituted an assumption of the risks involved as a matter of law. 

The court noted that the Plaintiff in this matter was experienced in the sport of dirt bike racing and was well aware that such activity had a risk of serious injury or death.  The court additionally reaffirmed the rule that a minor is capable of assuming the risk of a dangerous activity in certain circumstances.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  The Court's Order in the case can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck, of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm and the writer of the excellent Drug and Device Law blog for bringing this case to my attention.

Pennsylvania Superior Court Affirms Finding of No Duty Owed in Data Breach Case

In its recent decision in the case of Dittman v. UPNC d/b/a The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, No. 971 WDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Jan. 12, 2017 Olson, J., Stabile, J., and Musammno, J.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed the general question of whether a duty of care exists under the test set forth in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 756 A.2d 1166, 1169 (Pa. 2000).  The Dittman case involves an action for negligence and breach of contract against a medical center after an alleged data breach with regards to the medical center’s computer systems.  

The Pennsylvania Superior Court found that the trial court did not err in finding that the medical center owed no duty to the Plaintiff under Pennsylvania law.   

The court also found that the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims in the absence of any allegations that the medical center intended to enter into any contract to protect the Plaintiff’s personal information allegedly exposed during the data breach.  

In its Opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court stated that, under the Althaus test, whether a duty exists is a question for the court to decide and, in so deciding, the following factors are to be considered:

1.         The relationship between the parties;

2.         The social utility of the actor’s conduct;

3.         The nature of the risk imposed and foreseeability of the harm incurred;

4.         The consequences of imposing a duty upon the actor; and,

5.         The overall public interest in the proposed solution.

As stated, the court found that no duty existed under the circumstances presented in this matter.  

In its Opinion, the court also addressed the economic loss doctrine, which provides that no cause of action exists for negligence that results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage.  The court upheld the trial court’s decision that the Plaintiff was barred from recovering economic losses as the Plaintiff could not show that the Defendant breached any duty imposed by law.  

Anyone wishing to review the Opinion of Judge Olson issued in this matter may click this LINK. 

Judge Stabile’s Concurring Statement, in which Judge Olson joined, can be viewed at this LINK.  

Judge Musmanno’s dissenting statement can be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention. 

 

Superior Court Reviews Law of Duty in Cheerleading Injury Case

In the case of Kennedy v. Robert Morris University, No. 1844 EDA 2014, 2016 Pa. Super. 16 (Pa. Super. Jan. 29, 2016 Bowes, Olson, Stabile, J.J.) (Opinion by Bowes, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants in a negligence claim arising out of injuries sustained by the Plaintiff at a cheerleading camp.

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).  

 

Judge Van Jura of Luzerne County Addresses No Duty Rule in Baseball Injury Case

In his recent decision in the case of DeAngelo v. Little League International, No. 6296 of 2008 (C.P. Luz. Dec. 16, 2011 Van Jura, J.), Judge Joseph Van Jura of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas addressed the “no duty” rule in a case involving an assistant baseball coach being struck in the face by an overthrown baseball during a post-game practice.

According to the opinion, a little league baseball game was stopped, by virtue of the “10 run rule” (or “mercy rule”), which dictates that, at the end of any inning after the 4th inning, if one team has a lead of 10 runs or more, the manager of the losing team must concede victory to the opponent and the game is then ended.

After the game was completed, the teams apparently agreed to continue playing for additional practice purposes. During the post-game practicing, the Plaintiff was injured when he was standing near first base and a short stop over threw the first basement and struck the Plaintiff on the right side of his head, causing serious injuries, including right eye blindness.

After the case proceeded to discovery, the Defendant, Little League Baseball Incorporated and Hazle Township Little League filed a Motion for Summary Judgment under the “no duty” rule. According to the opinion, the Defendants asserted that the “no duty” rule applied under the circumstances.

Judge Van Jura conducted a detailed analysis of the “no duty” rule which serves to “eliminate any duty of care to warn, protect, or ensure against risks which are ‘common, frequent, expected’ and ‘inherent’ in an activity voluntarily undertaken by a prospective Plaintiff.” [citations omitted]. The court noted that, if it is determined that the no-duty rule is applicable to a negligence claim, the Plaintiff is unable to proceed.

Judge Van Jura stated that it while it appeared that the no-duty rule would apply if this occurrence took place during the actual game, the issue before the court was “whether the no-duty rule would be properly applicable to the two independently simultaneously occurring “practices” on the same field, by the two different teams.”

Judge Van Jura stated that Pennsylvania law has made it clear that the injury need not occur during the actual conduct of a game for recovery to be barred by the “no duty rule.”

After reviewing the law in greater detail, including the number of decisions arising out of baseball games, professional and otherwise, the court concluded that the “no duty” rule barred the Plaintiff’s recovery under the facts presented. Accordingly, the court granted the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

Anyone desiring a copy of this interesting opinion by Judge Van Jura in the DeAngelo case may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.