WILLIAMSPORT – An educational tour company and the mother of an alleged assailant have answered litigation brought against them by a California couple, who claimed that they were negligent in overseeing high school students on a trip to Spain one year ago – a trip during which the plaintiffs’ 16-year-old daughter was allegedly raped by one of the defendants.
The parents of a teenager known as L.F., of Camarillo, Calif., first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on June 22 versus EF Educational Tours and related entities of Cambridge, Mass., as well as individuals known who will be called D.T. and J.T., for the purposes of this article.
The suit said L.F. was part of a group of students who visited Madrid, Spain, in June 2022 as part of a trip EF organized and operated. It adds EF had a duty to provide “a safe travel experience.”
L.F.’s group was consolidated with a group of Pennsylvania students that included D.T. and was chaperoned by his mother, J.T., the suit said.
“The consolidated groups were placed at the same hotel, which accommodation was organized, supervised, and controlled by the EF defendants. Defendant D.T. and L.F. were assigned hotel rooms directly next door to one another by the EF defendant, which assignments were organized, supervised (or supposed to be supervised) and controlled by the EF defendants,” the suit said.
“There was no separation of the students by gender based on hotel floor assignments by the EF defendants, i.e. female rooms on one floor, male rooms on another floor. There was no separation of the students by gender based on sides of the hotel by the EF defendants, i.e. female rooms on one corridor, male rooms on another. Despite the vulnerable age of these minor travelers, minor female travelers were placed in rooms directly next to minor male travelers.”
The suit continued that “despite the vulnerable age of these minor travelers, there was no implanting or enforcing safety rules in the hotel for the minor travelers, such as curfews or prohibiting minor travelers of one sex from being in the rooms of minor travelers of the opposite sex,” nor was there “supervision of the minor travelers once in the hotel by the EF defendants, such as room checks or hallway monitors.”
Moreover, the suit alleged that D.T. made numerous advances towards L.F., all of which were rebuffed by her, as she made her feelings known to D.T. that such advances were unwelcome.
“On June 27, 2022, L.F. finally agreed to meet with defendant D.T. in the hotel hallway to tell him directly that his advances and harassing behavior were unwelcome and insist that he leave her alone,” the suit said.
“There were no EF group leaders, EF supervisors, EF chaperones, or EF tour guides anywhere in the vicinity when these two minor travelers were in the hallway of the hotel outside their assigned, neighboring rooms, which rooms had been assigned by the EF defendants. Defendant D.T. arrived shirtless in the hallway, grabbing L.F. by the wrists, and pulling her into his hotel room. L.F. pleaded, protested, and insisted that the defendant D.T. stop, which he did not. Defendant D.T. ignored L.F.’s protests, cries, and tears, and proceeded to kiss her, and rub his body against hers,” the suit said.
L.F. said she cried and protested, but D.T. forced her onto the bed, where he raped her multiple times over several hours.
“He also photographed her against her wishes afterward. Once defendant D.T. freed L.F., L.F. reported the attack to the EF defendants, she was given medical attention at a Spanish hospital, and defendant D.T. was arrested and charged with the assault,” the suit said.
The suit says the EF defendants promised a safe trip but instead, L.F. suffered “severely, physically, emotionally and psychologically, and will continue to do so into the future.”
The plaintiffs charged that the defendants:
• Failed to properly protect the minor travelers on the trip;
• Failed to employ, train, supervise, and direct group leaders, tour guides, tour directors and other staff to ensure that they were properly supervising these minor travelers on this international trip;
• Failed to take necessary precautions to ensure that the minor travelers were safe while staying in the hotel that the EF defendants had arranged; and
• Failed to take necessary precautions by not have the supervising adults monitoring the minor travelers in the hotel that the EF defendants had arranged and over the rooms that the EF defendants had assigned.
UPDATE
The EF defendants and defendant J.T. separately answered the complaint on Aug. 28, with both answers expressly denying the substantive allegations contained in the complaint.
“Plaintiffs, for good and valuable consideration, released and forever discharged the EF defendants from any claims arising out of or related to plaintiffs’ participation in the Tour. The complaint fails to state a claim or cause of action upon which relief can be granted. If plaintiffs suffered any injuries, said damages are the result of the actions of third-parties for which the EF defendants are not responsible. The EF defendants contend that their conduct was not the proximate cause of any injury or harm alleged in the complaint and any alleged damages plaintiffs seek were not proximately caused by any conduct the EF defendants. If plaintiffs suffered any injuries, said damages are the result of superseding and intervening causes. The release signed by plaintiffs, and on behalf of L.F., bars all claims brought by plaintiffs,” per the EF defendants’ affirmative defenses.
“Any injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs were the result of intervening superseding causes and were not caused or contributed to by any negligence or fault of the EF defendants. Plaintiffs fail to state grounds for punitive damages or attorneys’ fees. The claims included in the complaint are time-barred in whole or in part by the applicable statutes of limitations and/or by the doctrine of laches. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver and estoppel. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any. The EF defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses if and when they become known through investigation and discovery.”
Defendant J.T. also asserted similar defenses.
“Plaintiffs, for good and valuable consideration, released and forever discharged the EF defendants from any claims arising out of or related to plaintiffs’ participation in the Tour. The complaint fails to state a claim or cause of action upon which relief can be granted. If plaintiffs suffered any injuries, said damages are the result of the actions of third-parties for which the EF defendants are not responsible. The EF defendants contend that their conduct was not the proximate cause of any injury or harm alleged in the complaint and any alleged damages plaintiffs seek were not proximately caused by any conduct the EF defendants. If plaintiffs suffered any injuries, said damages are the result of superseding and intervening causes. The release signed by plaintiffs, and on behalf of L.F., bars all claims brought by plaintiffs,” according to J.T.’s affirmative defenses.
“Any injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs were the result of intervening superseding causes and were not caused or contributed to by any negligence or fault of the EF defendants. Plaintiffs fail to state grounds for punitive damages or attorneys’ fees. The claims included in the complaint are time-barred in whole or in part by the applicable statutes of limitations and/or by the doctrine of laches. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver and estoppel. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, if any. Defendant J.T. reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses if and when they become known through investigation and discovery.”
For counts of negligent, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs are seeking, individually, jointly and severally, damages for past, present, and future pain and suffering, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and any other compensatory damages, together with all costs of suit and other remedies allowed by law, interest in the maximum amount allowed by law, attorney’s fees and costs in the maximum amount allowed by law, and such other and further relied as the Court deems just.
The plaintiffs are represented by Susan B. Ayres of Hill & Associates, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Brian J. Bluth of McCormick Law Firm in Williamsport, Edwin A.D. Schwartz and John Michael Arose of McNees Wallace & Nurick in Harrisburg, plus Jeffrey P. Allen of Lawson & Weitzen, in Boston, Mass.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:23-cv-01038
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com