Baumbach, R. v. Lafayette College
2022 Pa. Super. 40
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2022Background
- Aubrey Baumbach, a Lafayette College freshman and member of the club crew team, practiced at a boathouse two miles from campus accessed only via Lehigh Drive, a poorly lit road without sidewalks where cars commonly exceeded the 45 mph limit.
- Lafayette employed head and assistant coaches who supervised practices, ran freshmen along Lehigh Drive, instructed them to run single-file and watch for cars, and maintained a "usual" parking lot adjacent to the boathouse.
- On November 8, 2013 coaches parked a team vehicle blocking the usual lot, forcing teammates to use a remote lot and walk along the dark, shoulder-less Lehigh Drive; Aubrey was struck by a drunk driver returning from practice and suffered catastrophic injuries.
- Appellants (Aubrey’s guardians) sued Lafayette College and the coaches for negligence and intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation, alleging Lafayette undertook to provide safe conditions (including parking) and made representations that Lehigh Drive/walking routes were safe.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for Lafayette, finding no duty and that any reliance by Aubrey was not justifiable; after settling with dramshop defendants, appellants timely appealed; the Superior Court reversed and reinstated the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lafayette owed a duty to Aubrey based on affirmative conduct/undertaking | Baumbach: Lafayette undertook to protect crew members (management agreement, provided parking, hired/supervised coaches) creating a duty under Restatement §323 and Pennsylvania precedent | Lafayette: No legal duty to protect pedestrian students from roadway hazards; no basis to impose duty as matter of law | Reversed — allegations suffice to plead an assumed duty from affirmative conduct; question of duty not resolved against plaintiff at pleading stage |
| Whether Aubrey justifiably relied on Lafayette's representations about safety (intentional misrepresentation) | Baumbach: Coaches told team Lehigh Drive/remote parking was safe and led freshmen runs, inducing reliance | Lafayette: Any pedestrian on a road without sidewalks assumes obvious risk; reliance was not justifiable as a matter of law | Reversed — justifiable reliance is a factual question; plaintiff pleaded facts sufficient for a prima facie misrepresentation claim |
| Whether the appeal was timely given the August 10, 2020 settlement-approval order | Baumbach: Settlement agreement made final only after receipt of funds and filing of praecipe to discontinue, which occurred Dec. 11, 2020 | Lafayette: August 10 order was final and appeal should have been filed within 30 days | Court held appeal timely: August 10 order approved settlements but did not dispose of entire case; finality occurred after payment and praecipe, so December appeal was timely |
Key Cases Cited
- Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742 (Pa. 1984) (adopts Restatement §323; affirmative undertaking can create duty)
- Feleccia v. Lackawanna Coll., 215 A.3d 3 (Pa. 2019) (affirmative conduct by college can impose duty to protect student-athletes)
- Dittman v. UPMC, 196 A.3d 1036 (Pa. 2018) (affirmative conduct may give rise to duty in novel contexts)
- Scampone v. Highland Park Care Ctr., LLC, 57 A.3d 582 (Pa. 2012) (existence of duty is threshold legal question in negligence)
- Wakeley v. M.J. Brunner, Inc., 147 A.3d 1 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review for judgment on the pleadings is plenary)
- Gibbs v. Ernst, 647 A.2d 882 (Pa. 1994) (elements of intentional misrepresentation)
- Toy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007) (justifiable reliance is typically a factual question)