936 F. Supp. 2d 618
W.D. Pa.2013Background
- Plaintiff injured when he was shot on Duquesne University campus after leaving a dance on campus grounds.
- Duquesne's security program included officers, guards, cameras, blue-code stations, escorts, and limited entry control.
- Plaintiff alleges Duquesne owed a duty to provide security and breached it, causing his injuries.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing no duty or proximate causation, and no agency with the BSU.
- The court must predict Pennsylvania law on duty and causation in a diversity-like context and conclude whether summary judgment is warranted.
- The court ultimately grants summary judgment for Duquesne, holding no duty was owed under applicable Pennsylvania law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Duquesne owed a duty to protect plaintiff from a spontaneous shooting. | Plaintiff contends §323 or §314A duty applies due to security program. | Duquesne had no preexisting duty; no special relationship or foreseeability. | No duty found; no liability. |
| Whether the security program's breach proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries. | Breach of security foreseeably led to access of armed assailants. | Breach requirements not met; shooters acted independently. | Breach not a proximate cause; no liability. |
| Whether §323 creates a duty based on undertaking to render security. | Undertaking to provide security imposes duty. | No valid undertaking to provide comprehensive gun-free environment. | No §323 duty established under Feld framework. |
| Whether §314A(3) creates a duty for a landowner open to the public. | Open campus and BSU invitation create duty to protect. | No special relationship; §314A not triggered. | No §314A(3) duty; not liable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383, 485 A.2d 742 (Pa. 1984) (landlord not insurer for third-party criminal acts absent special undertaking)
- Kerns v. Methodist Hospital, 393 Pa. Super. 533, 574 A.2d 1068 (Pa. Super. 1990) (security program limits; no implied duty from mere possession of security)
- Bradshaw v. Rawlings, 612 F.2d 135 (3d Cir. 1979) (public college not insurer of student safety; duty limited by public policy)
- First v. Zem Zem Temple, 686 A.2d 18 (Pa. Super. 1996) (causation; foreseeability; proximate cause framework)
- Rabutino v. Freedom State Realty Co., 809 A.2d 933 (Pa. Super. 2002) (proximate vs actual causation; jury question on substantial factor)