Opinion ID: 199063
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Parkers' Evidence

Text: 21 Although Parker could not say what caused his fall, and the Parkers presented no eyewitness account, Vaazquez and Escudero testified that the fall occurred at the spot on the path where it dropped two inches abruptly to the ground below. A jury could infer that this dropoff caused Mr. Parker's wheelchair to overturn, or forced Parker to alter his course down the path in such a way that caused his fall. Wheelchairs do not typically overturn without some intervening cause. 22 A jury could also conclude that Parker was using the path intended for wheelchair use. A park guard directed Parker to use the path at issue, after seeing that Parker would be traveling by wheelchair. Although there were at least two other routes to the Monet Garden, there were no signs or other notices indicating that wheelchair users should take these other paths. Under these circumstances, a jury could conclude that the two-inch dropoff at the end of the paved path denied Parker safe access to the Monet Garden and caused his fall and injury. 23 In considering the defenses that the University could offer in response to this prima facie case, we first note that the claim under Title II is similar in many respects to a tort claim. See Pandazides v. Virginia Bd. of Educ., 13 F.3d 823, 829 (4th Cir. 1994) (stating that a private cause of action under § 504, is essentially a form of statutory tort); Wolsky v. Medical College of Hampton Roads, 1 F.3d 222, 224 (4th Cir. 1993) (Rehabilitation Act claims are injuries to individuals and analogous to personal injury claims.); Smith v. Barton, 914 F.2d 1330, 1337 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that although there were no discrimination actions at common law, a discrimination action under the Rehabilitation Act is most closely analogous to an 18th-century tort action or an action brought to enforce an express or implied employment contract). In most instances, the injury alleged pursuant to Title II of the ADA is exclusion from participation in, or the denial of the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, because of discrimination against a person by reason of disability. See, e.g., Easley v. Snider, 36 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 1994) (seeking to enjoin state to include persons with certain types of mental disabilities in state home care program); Kinney v. Yerusalim, 9 F.3d 1067 (3d Cir. 1993) (seeking to enjoin municipality to install curb cuts as part of street resurfacing plan); Concerned Parents to Save Dreher Park Ctr. v. City of West Palm Beach, 846 F. Supp. 986 (S.D. Fla. 1994) (seeking to enjoin municipality from eliminating certain recreational programs for disabled persons). Here, however, the injury alleged includes physical injury as well as the denial of access to a public facility. 24 Nevertheless, the inclusion of a physical injury in the Title II claim does not convert the claim into a traditional negligence action premised on the violation of a duty owed by a landowner such as the University to members of the public generally who are invited on to the premises. The primary injury alleged and proven under Title II in a case such as this remains the alleged violation by the University of its statutory duty to disabled persons to prevent the discriminatory denial of access to a service, program, or activity. The physical injury is an additional consequence of the violation of that statutory duty, which is of a different character than a duty owed to the general population. That is, the University does not satisfy the duties imposed by Title II merely by exercising reasonable care to protect persons with disabilities, along with other members of the public, from dangerous conditions on the premises. Rather, the University must act affirmatively to eliminate barriers on the premises that would otherwise serve to deny persons with disabilities access to services, programs, or activities of the University--here, access to the Monet Garden. 25 Given that the liability issue under Title II is a discriminatory denial of access, not negligence, the University could rebut the prima facie case of the Parkers by showing that disabled persons using wheelchairs were not denied access to the Monet Garden. For example, the University could have produced evidence that, irrespective of the accident on this occasion, the path at issue was actually safe for wheelchair use, thereby suggesting that the fall resulted from Mr. Parker's own negligence rather than a denial of access to disabled persons. The University might have established that there was another path to the Monet Garden that was safe for wheelchair use, properly noted with signs, but Parker and Vaazquez missed the signs and misconstrued the signal of the park guard. Finally, the University could have argued that providing wheelchair access to the Monet Garden would require a fundamental alteration or undue burden. 26 These defenses were never offered because the trial court never required the defendants to defend. That ruling was erroneous and it requires us to vacate and remand.