215 A.3d 3
Pa.2019Background
- Augustus Feleccia and Justin Resch, student football players at Lackawanna College, were injured during a March 29, 2010 practice that included an "Oklahoma Drill."
- Lackawanna had recently hired two recent graduates (Coyne and Bonisese) who lacked required state athletic-trainer licenses; they were presented to players as athletic trainers (later retitled "first responders") and were the only medical personnel at the practice.
- Appellees signed a pre-participation Waiver releasing Lackawanna from "any and all liability" for injuries sustained while playing football; they also signed a Consent referencing treatment by "athletic trainer, team physician or hospital staff."
- Appellees sued for negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, recklessness (punitive damages), and related claims; defendants moved for summary judgment based largely on the Waiver.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, holding the Waiver enforceable; the Superior Court reversed in part, finding genuine issues whether Lackawanna had a duty to provide qualified medical personnel and whether the Waiver barred gross negligence/recklessness claims.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court: affirmed Superior Court only to the extent it vacated summary judgment on gross negligence and recklessness, held (1) defendants undertook a duty to provide licensed athletic trainers and factual disputes remain as to breach/causation, (2) the Waiver bars ordinary negligence but cannot bar gross negligence or recklessness; remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a college owes a duty to have qualified medical personnel available at intercollegiate athletic events | Lackawanna undertook an affirmative duty by customarily providing licensed athletic trainers, by requiring consent referencing treatment by an "athletic trainer," and by holding Coyne/Bonisese out as trainers | Superior Court created a new common-law duty without Althaus analysis; imposing such a duty is judicial policymaking best left to Legislature | Court: No need to create novel duty under Althaus — traditional principles (Restatement §323 and cases) apply; Lackawanna’s affirmative conduct created a duty to exercise reasonable care to provide licensed trainers; genuine factual disputes exist about breach and causation (remand) |
| Whether the Waiver of "any and all liability" bars ordinary negligence claims | Waiver does not cover reckless/gross conduct but covers ordinary negligence; plaintiffs knowingly assumed risks | Waiver’s broad language releases "any and all liability" and thus bars negligence claims | Court: Waiver is sufficiently clear to bar ordinary negligence and related negligence-per-se claims; trial court erred in granting summary judgment only to the extent it precluded gross negligence/recklessness claims |
| Whether pre-injury waivers can bar gross negligence claims | Gross negligence is significantly worse than ordinary negligence but less than recklessness; public policy should not bar waiver for gross negligence | Waiver should cover gross negligence as a heightened form of negligence and is enforceable if clear | Court: Waiver cannot bar liability for gross negligence (policy concerns similar to recklessness); claims of gross negligence must be tested at trial |
| Whether pre-injury waivers can bar recklessness / punitive-damage allegations | Plaintiffs: reckless conduct cannot be waived; punitive claims remain | Defendants concede recklessness cannot be waived but argue Waiver bars ordinary negligence so punitive claims fail if negligence is barred | Court: Waiver cannot bar claims grounded in recklessness; such allegations survive and go to trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 2 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2010) (standards for enforceability of exculpatory agreements)
- Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp., 47 A.3d 1190 (Pa. 2012) (pre-injury waivers unenforceable as to reckless conduct)
- Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg Coll., 989 F.2d 1360 (3d Cir. 1993) (college–student-athlete special relationship creating duty of care)
- Dittman v. UPMC, 196 A.3d 1036 (Pa. 2018) (affirmative conduct can create a duty to protect others from foreseeable risks)
- Topp Copy Prod., Inc. v. Singletary, 626 A.2d 98 (Pa. 1993) (broad phrase "any and all liability" can be sufficient to cover negligence)
- Althaus ex rel. Althaus v. Cohen, 756 A.2d 1166 (Pa. 2000) (factors to consider before recognizing a new common-law duty)