eNotes: Liability – May 2024 – Federal

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Federal Case Summary

Hazen v. Woodloch Pines Resort
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
No. 3:21-CV-00174

Decided: February 16, 2024

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to assumption of risk doctrine denied where Plaintiff lacked awareness of “specific risk” and were genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Plaintiff’s participation in the activity was voluntary.

Background

Woodloch Pines Resort (“Woodloch”) is an all-inclusive family resort located in Pike County, Pennsylvania. Since the 1990s, it has offered corporate team building activities on an outdoor low ropes challenge course. One of the elements of this challenge course was a “balance beam” or “teeter-totter” device made up of a fulcrum with a plank on top of it. The plank or “beam” is 10-feet long and 10-inches wide. The fulcrum is 12-inches high and, when at its highest point, the end of the plank or beam is 3 feet above the surface below. The area below and around the balance beam device was covered with wooden mulch, to cushion any falls.

In June 2019, Plaintiff Erin Hazen, was an assistant principal at a public charter school in Newark, New Jersey. Plaintiff and ten of her colleagues participated in a leadership retreat at Woodloch, which included use of the outdoor challenge course and the “balance beam”. Plaintiff and her colleagues were instructed by Woodloch’s corporate activities director that the goal of the balance beam activity was to get the entire 11-person leadership team onto the plank without breaking either of two eggs that had been placed under each end of the plank. There is a dispute whether the director gave any additional verbal instructions or warnings to the participants. After two unsuccessful attempts to complete the activity, the team was able to get ten members on the plank at once during its third attempt. When the eleventh team member mounted on the plank, it became unbalanced and Plaintiff fell off, along with other participants, with at least one other participant landing on top of Plaintiff. As a result of her fall, Plaintiff suffered an ankle injury. She filed suit against Woodloch, who moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff’s claims were barred under the assumption of risk doctrine.

Holding

The Court examined the current status of Pennsylvania’s “assumption of risk doctrine”. The Court stated that “[u]nder Pennsylvania law, assumption of the risk is established by showing that the injured party fully appreciated the nature of the risk it faced and voluntarily assumed it. In addition, the injured party must not have had a meaningful and reasonable alternative path to avoid the risk”. “Under the doctrine of assumption of the risk, a defendant is relieved of its duty to protect a plaintiff where the plaintiff has voluntarily and deliberately proceeded to face a known and obvious risk and therefore is considered to have assumed liability for his own injuries.” The Court went on to state that given that its application is a “drastic measure” barring a plaintiff’s recovery, to grant summary judgment on assumption of the risk as a matter of law, the court must conclusively find, beyond question, that the plaintiff was subjectively aware of a specific risk, voluntarily accepted it, acted in spite of that risk, and suffered harm contemplated by that specific risk. The defendant’s burden to establish assumption of the risk is a tall order because assumption of the risk requires knowledge of a specific risk. “It is not enough that the plaintiff was generally aware that the activity in which he was engaged had accompanying risks. Rather, the plaintiff must be aware of ‘the particular danger’ from which he is subsequently injured in order to voluntarily assume that risk as a matter of law.”

While the Court found that it was undisputed that the Plaintiff was generally aware of the risk that she might fall from the balance beam during the activity she was engaged in, the Court noted that awareness of a general risk does not amount to awareness of a specific risk under the assumption of the risk doctrine under Pennsylvania law. Here, the Court did not find that the potential for serious injury such as a complex ankle fracture and other injuries could have been understood under the circumstances. Further, the Court noted that there was a genuine dispute of material facts as to whether Plaintiff’s participation in the activity was voluntary under the doctrine. This was due to Plaintiff offering testimony that she felt her participation in the activity was required rather than voluntary. Thus, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion for summary judgment.

Questions about this case can be directed to Taryn Vender at (570) 825-4794 or tvender@tthlaw.com.