Biju John v. St. Thomas Indian Orthodox Church
Biju John v. St. Thomas Indian Orthodox Church No. 1223 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 20, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Biju John, a church parishioner, was injured while voluntarily playing tug-of-war at a church picnic; he played twice that day.
- John alleges opposing team members pulled and then released the rope early (after a signal from Rev. Fr. Kuriakose), causing teammates to fall and collide, tearing his ACL and causing other injuries.
- John cannot identify who told him about the alleged signal; his wife testified she saw Kuriakose signal the other team to “pull it and drop.”
- Defendants are the St. Thomas Indian Orthodox Church and Rev. Fr. M.K. Kuriakose; action brought in Philadelphia County, negligence claim.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding John assumed the known risks inherent in tug-of-war and that defendants owed no duty to protect him from those risks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether John assumed the risk of injury from playing tug-of-war | John argues he could not have appreciated the risk of the game being altered (signal to pull-and-drop) and thus did not assume that specific risk | Defendants argue tug-of-war’s risks (falling/collision) are obvious and inherent; John voluntarily participated | Court: John assumed the inherent risks of tug-of-war; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether defendants owed a duty to warn/protect participants from altered rules or conduct | John contends defendants controlled the picnic area, ran the game, and thus owed invitee duties to warn of dangerous conditions or altered rules | Defendants assert no duty to protect against risks that are common, frequent, expected and inherent to the activity | Court: No duty owed as to inherent risks; assumption-of-risk doctrine removes duty |
| Whether alleged conduct (Kuriakose signaling) creates a material factual dispute defeating summary judgment | John points to wife’s deposition alleging an intentional signal that caused the drop | Defendants maintain any conduct did not change that the injury resulted from an inherent, obvious risk; thus conduct is irrelevant to duty | Court: Even accepting wife’s testimony, the injury was from an inherent risk; no genuine issue of material fact on duty/assumption |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | John argues factual disputes remain and case should go to jury | Defendants argue law supports no-duty/assumption bar as a matter of law | Court: Summary judgment affirmed—facts present scenario where assumption of risk bars recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Loughran v. Phillies, 888 A.2d 872 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Bullman v. Giuntoli, 761 A.2d 566 (Pa. Super. 2000) (elements for summary judgment based on assumption of the risk)
- Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1983) (assumption-of-risk as corollary to lack of duty for obvious dangers)
- Montagazzi v. Crisci, 994 A.2d 626 (Pa. Super. 2010) (assumption-of-risk typically a jury question; only clear cases appropriate for summary judgment)
- Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 2 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2010) (no-duty rule for hazards inherent in recreational activities)
- Bowser v. Hershey Baseball Assoc., 516 A.2d 61 (Pa. Super. 1986) (participant assumed risks inherent in sport; organizer not liable for those inherent risks)