Course Hero Logo

Has breached this duty at all is a question of fact

Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. This preview shows page 11 - 12 out of 15 pages.

hasbreachedthisdutyatallisaquestionoffact for the jury.SeeSuchomajcz, 524 F.2d at 27;seealsoDoughteryv.BoyertownTimes,377Pa.Super.462,547A.2d778,787(Pa.Super.Ct.1988).ThisCourt recognizes only that under the facts of this case,the College owed a duty to Drew to have measures inplace at the lacrosse[**32]team's practice on theafternoonofSeptember16,1988inordertoprovideprompttreatmentintheeventthatheoranyothermember of the lacrosse team suffered a life-threateninginjury.We also must reject the College's vigorous and lengthyargumentthatDrew'scardiacarrestcouldnothavebeen foreseeable because his parents' encouragementto engage in athletic activity shows that Drew's death asa result of cardiac arrest while[*1371]participating inathletics was not foreseeable even to them:In response to their perception of the risk of Drewexperiencingsuddencardiacarrestasnegligible,theparentsmadenoattempttolearnCPR.Theymade their home a beehive of athletic activity, buttheymadenoprovisiontotreattherare,unpredictable circumstance presented by this case.Had physical activity at his parents' home producedDrewKleinknecht'sheartattack,hewouldbejustas dead.Brief for Appellee at 21 (citation omitted). This argumentis unavailing because it addresses foreseeability asrelating to causation, not duty. It is not pertinent to theissue of the College's duty of care to Drew.TheLeahycourtdescribedthedutyaschoolowesitsathletes[**33]as"Tak[ing] the form of giving adequate instruction inthe activity, supplying proper equipment, making areasonableselectionormatchingofparticipants,providing non-negligent supervision of the particularcontest, and taking proper post-injury procedures toprotect against aggravation of the injury."Leahy, 450 So.2d at 883(quoting Annot., 35 A.L.R.3d725, 734 (1971) (footnotes omitted)).7In reversing thedistrict court's grant of summary judgment to theCollege,wepredictthattheSupremeCourtofPennsylvania would hold that a college also has a dutytobereasonablypreparedforhandlingmedicalemergenciesthatforeseeablyariseduringastudent'sparticipation in an intercollegiate contact sport for whichacollegerecruitedhim.Itisclearlyforeseeablethataperson participating in such an activity will sustainserious injury requiring immediate medical attention.[**34]It may be that the emergency medical measurestheCollegehadinplaceweresufficienttofulfillthisduty. It is also possible that the College could notforeseethatitsfailuretoprovideemergencymedicalservices other than those which it already had in placewould substantially contribute to the death of anapparently healthy student. Nevertheless,Whether in a particular case the plaintiff hasdemonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence,7We note again that this case involved participation in publicschool athletics at the pre-college level.

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 15 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
NoProfessor
Tags
Test, Supreme Court of the United States, Drew R Kleinknecht

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture