 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hobbs v. Boy Scouts of America Incorporated11/16/2004
ants had no supervision over the activity in question, and there is no dispute that Fleer acted in defiance and disobedience of the applicable policies and rules of Defendants. The defendants did not authorize, plan, conduct or supervise either the activity in question, or the transportation to the event. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment in favor of Defendants as to Count I of the petition.
Scouting Program as a "Product"
As to Counts II and III of the petition, Plaintiff contends that the court erred in finding that the scouting program was not a "product" under product liability jurisprudence. Plaintiff claims there were material facts from which it could be found that a scouting program was not a service but a product and that Defendants knew the product was defective when "sold" ; to Plaintiff.
Defendants point out that the Restatement of Torts (Third) defines a product as "tangible personal property distributed commercially for use or consumption." R ESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF T ORTS: P RODUCTS L IABILITY , section 19(a). Product liability theories do not apply to services. R ESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF T ORTS: P RODUCTS L IABILITY , section 19(f); see also Hershley v. Brown , 655 S.W.2d 671, 675 (Mo. App. 1983) (refusing to apply strict liability to rendition of medical services). Plaintiff presents no authority to the contrary.
Plaintiff presents the fact that one scout leader stated, "I think of scouting as a product. . . . " See Dale v. Boy Scouts of Am. , 706 A.2d 270, 280 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1998), rev'd on other grounds , Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale , 530 U.S. 640 (2000). Plaintiff also points out that in Young v. Boy Scouts of America , 51 P.2d 191, 194 (Cal. App. 1935), the court stated, "Strictly speaking, the boy scouts' organization does not . . . carry on a service in the sense in which a hospital . . . does." These statements fall short of a judicial adjudication that scouting is a product within the meaning of the product liability laws.
For all the foregoing reasons, we conclude that there are no material facts in dispute and that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
|