 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
R.W. v. Manzek12/9/2003
R.W. and C.W. appeal from the July 31, 2002 Order sustaining the preliminary objections filed by appellees and dismissing their complaint.
In September 1999, all students at the Banks-Canoe Elementary School including appellants' child, L.W., participated in a fundraising activity. L.W. approached Timothy Fleming and asked him to buy some candy for the fundraiser. L.W. entered Fleming's home where Fleming sexually assaulted her.
On July 5, 2000, appellants filed an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against the Punxsutawney Area School District and its superintendent asserting civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Civil action for deprivation of rights, and asserting pendant state claims against appellees for failure to warn L.W. of the dangerous conditions related to the fundraiser activity. In February 2001, the district court dismissed the claims against the school district and superintendent. It declined to exercise pendant jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed them without prejudice. Appellants appealed the dismissal of their civil rights claims.
While the appeal was pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, appellants filed this action against appellees. Appellees filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer which the trial court stayed pending arguments in the Third Circuit. Ultimately, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the federal claims.
On January 15, 2002, the trial court entered an Order dismissing appellees' preliminary objections. Appellees filed motions for reconsideration of their preliminary objections and, on July 31, 2002, the court granted the motions, sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the case against appellees. It relied upon the reasoning of the district court which declined to impose liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, on a "state-created danger" theory, since it found Fleming's actions were not foreseeable.
Appellants filed an appeal to that Order on August 16, 2002. Appellees sought to quash the appeal arguing the Order was not final since Fleming remained an active defendant. This Court quashed the appeal on January 22, 2003, in agreement with appellees that the July 31, 2002, Order was not a final Order as it did not dispose of all claims and all parties. The Order was not appealable, therefore, at the time the appeal was filed. The July 31, 2002 Order became final, however, on January 3, 2003, when the trial court entered default judgment against Fleming. Accordingly, on January 23, 2003, appellants filed the instant appeal from that Order.
Appellants raise one issue on appeal.
Did the trial court err as a matter of law when it held that a finding regarding foreseeability in a statecreated danger cause of action in federal district court resolves the issue of foreseeability in a state law negligence cause of action against different defendants who are not state actors?
Appellants' brief at 5.
The applicable standard of review is as follows.
When reviewing a trial court's order sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissing a suit, our scope of review is plenary.
When reviewing an order granting preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, an appellate court applies the same standard employed by the trial court: all material facts set forth in the complaint as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom are admitted as true for the purposes of review. The question presented by the demurrer is whether, on the facts averred, the law says with certainty that no rec
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Pennsylvania Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|