Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-08-02060/USCOURTS-ca3-08-02060-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas J. Evanko
Appellant
Management & Training Corp
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________

No. 08-2060

 

THOMAS J. EVANKO, 

 

 Appellant.

v.

MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORPORATION

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(D. C. No. 06-cv-02440)

District Judge: Hon. Richard P. Conaboy

 

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

on May 14, 2009

Before: AMBRO and ROTH, Circuit Judges

 and FISCHER*, District Judge

(filed: May 6, 2010 )

 

 

*Honorable Nora Barry Fischer, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Case: 08-2060 Document: 003110133253 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/06/2010
2

 

O P I N I O N 

 

ROTH, Circuit Judge:

Thomas Evanko has sued Defendant Management and Training Corporation,

operator of the Keystone Job Corps facility, for negligence arising from injuries he

suffered when three students left the facility without permission and one of them struck

him in the face. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant,

holding that it owed no duty of care to Evanko. Evanko has timely appealed and argues

genuine issues of material fact existed.

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of a grant of summary judgment is

plenary. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Riley, 352 F.3d 804, 806 n.3 (3d Cir. 2003). We

will affirm.

A plaintiff alleging negligence “must demonstrate that the defendant owed a duty

of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, the breach resulted in injury to

the plaintiff and the plaintiff suffered an actual loss or damage.” Brisbine v. Outside In

Sch. of Experimental Educ., Inc., 799 A.2d 89, 93 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (quoting

Brezenski v. World Truck Transfer, Inc., 755 A.2d 36, 40 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000)). 

“Generally, there is no duty to control the acts of a third party unless the ‘defendant

stands in some special relationship’” either to the third party actor or to the injured

Case: 08-2060 Document: 003110133253 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/06/2010
3

person. Id. at 93 (quoting Brezenksi, 755 A.2d at 40). Pennsylvania law limits the

“special relationship” duties to the four recognized in the Restatement (Second) of Torts: 

(1) a parent’s duty to control a child; (2) a master’s duty to control a servant; (3) the duty

of a possessor of land to control a licensee; and (4) the duty of those in charge of an

individual with dangerous propensities to control the individual. See Restatement

(Second) of Torts §§ 316–319 (1965). Only the first and last of these relationships are

potentially applicable to the facts of the instant case.

As the District Court observed, there is no “special relationship” under the

applicable Restatement sections—and, thus, no duty—unless the defendant knew or

should have known that the third party actor was likely to cause injury. See Frey By and

Through Frey v. Smith By and Through Smith, 685 A.2d 169, 174 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996)

(“[I]f the injury [inflicted by a child] ought to have been foreseen by the parents, their

negligence is the proximate cause of the injury.”); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts

§ 319 (1965) (“One who takes charge of a third person whom he knows or should know

to be likely to cause bodily harm to others if not controlled is under a duty to exercise

reasonable care to control the third person to prevent him from doing such harm.”). 

Here, on the record presented, no reasonable jury could conclude that Evanko’s

injury was foreseeable to Defendant. The student who struck Evanko had a clean

criminal record, and though he had committed a number of minor infractions while at the

facility, none of those infractions evidenced a tendency to commit violent or criminal

Case: 08-2060 Document: 003110133253 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/06/2010
4

behavior. The histories of the other two students are of no moment, since they did not

cause any injury to Evanko. Finally, though Evanko attempts to portray the Keystone Job

Corps as a detention or incarceration facility, we agree with the District Court that he

failed to produce any evidence to support a finding that the students are a “special class”

of dangerous individuals.

Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Case: 08-2060 Document: 003110133253 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/06/2010