NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 23-1864

_____________

JARIUS DAVIS,

Appellant

v.

THE SALVATION ARMY

______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. No. 2-22-cv-04980)

District Judge: Honorable Mark A. Kearney

______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on

March 27, 2024

Before: RESTREPO, MATEY, and McKEE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 23, 2024)

______________________

OPINION

______________________



 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent. 
2

McKEE, Circuit Judge

The District Court granted summary judgment to Defendant based upon the 

Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff had failed to produce evidence that Defendant’s 

negligence caused Plaintiff to be assaulted by one of Defendant’s volunteers.

Specifically, the District Court concluded that Plaintiff had not adduced admissible 

evidence that the assailant had any connection to Defendant. We agree, so we will affirm.

I.1

As the District Court explained, Plaintiff’s negligence claim could be viewed in 

two ways. Plaintiff’s claim could be viewed either as a claim that Defendant negligently 

supervised its agent or as a claim that Defendant negligently failed to protect Plaintiff 

generally. 

Plaintiff’s claim necessarily fails on the first theory because there is no admissible 

evidence that the assailant was Defendant’s agent. Plaintiff is unable to cite to any 

evidence to establish agency beyond repeating the statements of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s 

mother, and we see nothing in the record to establish any relationship between the alleged 

assailant and the Plaintiff. 

The only potential evidence of the assailant’s connection with Defendant is 

Plaintiff’s mother’s statement that she spoke to someone “on the phone” who “ran 

1 When reviewing a summary judgment order, “[o]ur standard of review is plenary.” Ellis

v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., LLC, 11 F.4th 221, 229 (3d Cir. 2021). When we review 

evidentiary rulings, we generally review for abuse of discretion. Great Am. Ins. Co. v.

Norwin Sch. Dist., 544 F.3d 229, 251 (3d Cir. 2008).
3

[Defendant’s] Ridge Avenue location” and who told Plaintiff’s mother during the phone 

call that the assailant “had [been] adjudicated . . . as a sexual offender” and that a “court” 

had either “placed” the assailant at the camp or “approved” of the assailant volunteering 

at the camp. But this statement is inadmissible hearsay.

2

Defendant argues that this statement falls within the hearsay exception for 

statements against interest. But we disagree. That rule requires that the statement be 

against the “declarant’s” interest.3 While this statement might be against Defendant’s

interest, it was not against the declarant’s interest. Nowhere does the statement suggest 

that the declarant himself had any responsibility for the assailant’s conduct or presence at 

the camp, such that the statement could expose the declarant to personal liability.

4

Accordingly, Plaintiff has not adduced admissible evidence that the assailant was 

Defendant’s agent. 

Plaintiff’s claim fails on the second theory of negligence—that Defendant

generally failed to protect Plaintiff—for similar reasons. Even where a defendant has an 

affirmative duty to protect a plaintiff, the defendant’s duty is necessarily limited by the 

2 Plaintiff does not argue on appeal that this statement is non-hearsay as an opposing 

party’s statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), and any such argument 

would fail. The District Court correctly explained that the statement could not be 

admitted as a party-opponent’s statement because there was insufficient evidence 

identifying the declarant. 

3 See Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3)(A) (emphasis added).

4 Furthermore, Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) applies only when the declarant is 

“unavailable.” Fed. R. Evid. 804(a). The proponent of a hearsay statement bears the 

burden of proving that the declarant is unavailable. Kirk v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 61 F.3d

147, 165 (3d Cir. 1995). Here, there is no evidence pertaining to the declarant’s 

availability.
4

extent of the defendant’s knowledge.5 But as discussed above, Plaintiff has not produced 

any evidence that Defendant knew of the specific risk presented by the assailant or even 

of assailant’s presence at the park. Plaintiff seems to argue that, as an organization 

“serv[ing] and supervis[ing] children,” Defendant should have known that its summer 

camp could attract “child sexual predators.”6 Even if we accept this assertion, however, 

Plaintiff has still failed to identify evidence that Defendant’s efforts to prevent predatory 

members of the public from entering the camp fell below the appropriate standard of 

care. 

II.

For these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order. 

5 Morena v. S. Hills Health Sys., 501 Pa. 634, 642 (1983).

6 Appellant Br. 8–9.