SCRANTON – A federal magistrate judge has denied a motion for summary judgment from a Hawley resort, which had been accused of negligence by a New Jersey woman who received a severe ankle injury on its premises nearly five years ago.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito Jr. handed down a memorandum order denying summary judgment on Feb. 16, in plaintiff Erin Hazen’s lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania versus Woodloch Pines Resort and two of its employees, its Corporate Activities Director Eric Ranner and its Assistant Social Director Robert Filarsky.
“Woodloch Pines Resort 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 10½-inches wide. The fulcrum is 12½-inches high and, when at its highest point, the end of the plank or beam is 3½ feet above the surface below. The area below and around the balance beam device was covered with wooden mulch, presumably to cushion the fall of any participants,” Saporito said.
“In June 2019, the plaintiff, Erin Hazen, was an assistant principal at KIPP TEAM Academy, a public charter school in Newark, New Jersey. She had been working there for about a year. On Saturday, June 22, 2019, Hazen and 10 of her colleagues from the ‘leadership team’ at KIPP TEAM Academy were on the third day of a leadership retreat at Woodloch. That morning, they participated in the outdoor challenge course activities as a team. After completing several other activities, they attempted the ‘balance beam’ activity, where Hazen was injured.”
The team was instructed by Ranner, Saporito said, 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.
Saporito added that the parties disputed whether Ranner gave any additional verbal instructions or warnings to the participants, but agreed that Ranner was the only Woodloch employee present at the time.
“After two unsuccessful attempts to complete the activity, the team was able to get 10 members on the plank at once during its third attempt. When the eleventh team member mounted the plank, it became unbalanced and Hazen fell off, along with other participants. At least one other participant landed on top of Hazen. As a result of her fall, Hazen suffered a gruesome ankle injury, including left ankle dislocation, a displaced left ankle bi-malleolar fracture with transverse medial malleolar fracture, a transverse distal one-third fibula shaft fracture, syndesmotic rupture and a minimally displaced proximal fracture in the metaphysis. Her medical treatment included three surgeries and ongoing physical therapy. Due to her injuries, resultant physical limitations and her course of treatment, Hazen was forced to resign from her job at KIPP TEAM Academy. After a period of unemployment, Hazen is currently employed in a lower-paying position as a teacher at a different charter school in Morristown, New Jersey,” Saporito said.
“Hazen brought this federal diversity action asserting state law negligence claims against each of the defendants. The defendants have answered the complaint, and, following the completion of discovery, they have moved for summary judgment. In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants argue that Hazen is barred from all recovery by the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk.”
Saporito added that “it is undisputed that Hazen was generally aware of the risk that she might fall from the balance beam during this activity”, but that “awareness of a general risk does not amount to awareness of a specific risk” and “awareness of the specific risk presented by the balance beam activity here includes not just an appreciation of the general possibility that she might fall, but also an appreciation of the likelihood of a fall and the potential for serious injury, such as the complex, multiple ankle fractures and other injuries that the plaintiff in fact suffered.”
“Hazen’s failure to fully appreciate the specific risk of serious injury posed by the balance beam activity is further underscored by the fact that, between herself and all 10 of her leadership team colleagues that day, none believed the balance beam activity was so unsafe that they should decline to participate. Here, the parties dispute whether Hazen’s participation in the balance beam activity was voluntary. In her affidavit, Hazen has stated that she felt her participation in this team building activity was required rather than voluntary, noting that she had just finished her first year as an assistant principal at the charter school, she was required in that role to lead by example and thus participate fully in team-building activities, and the purpose of this particular activity was to get the entire team of 11 onto the plank at one time. Thus, this element of the defendants’ assumption of the risk defense is also subject to a genuine dispute of material fact,” Saporito stated.
“Accordingly, based on the facts and evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving plaintiff, we find that a reasonable jury could conclude that the plaintiff was not subjectively aware of the specific risk of serious injury posed by her participation in the balance beam activity that resulted in her injuries, or that she did not voluntarily accept that risk. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment will be denied.”
The plaintiff is represented by Robert A. Huber of Huber & Palsir, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by David J. Varriale of Varriale Law Firm, in Pound Ridge, N.Y.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:21-cv-00174
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com