A federal judge from the Western District of Pennsylvania has granted summary judgment to a school district, which was sued by a cheerleader, who was injured in practice almost a decade ago.
However, the court left intact her claim against the coach, finding that a “jury could reasonably conclude that the risk of significant injury from a fall onto the hard LGI flooring surface was foreseeable and a fairly direct result of (the coach’s) decision to proceed with the stunt in the absence of appropriate matting.”
The incident occurred on March 3, 2004 when plaintiff Heather Hinterberger, a member of the Iroquois High School cheerleading squad, was seriously injured when she attempted a “twist down cradle” — a stunt that was being introduced to the squad for the first time on that day.
The court noted that there were multiple spotters that day as the squad tried several times to perform the stunt. On the last attempt, the plaintiff “flew over and outside the perimeter of her base and her spotters, striking first her left hip, then her left shoulder, then her head on the LGI room floor. As a result, the plaintiff suffered a severe closed head injury. At the time that the plaintiff struck the floor, there was no matting in place.”
Hinterberger sued the cheerleading coach, Sally Loftus, and the Iroquois School District in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas. The case was ultimately removed to federal court.
What remains of Hinterberger’s claim centers on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “which does not create substantive rights but instead ‘provides only remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere in the Constitution or federal laws.’ Kneipp v. Tedder, 95 F.3d 1199, 1204 (3d Cir. 1996). To prevail under § 1983, a plaintiff must prove that she: (a) suffered the deprivation of a right secured by the United States Constitution or federal law (b) by a person acting under color of state law. Mark v. Borough of Hatboro, 51 F.3d 1137, 1141 (3d Cir.1995).”
The court continued: “With respect to the first element of the plaintiff’s case — demonstrating a violation of her federal rights, the plaintiff claims that her substantive due process right to bodily integrity was violated by Loftus’ conduct under a state-created danger theory. The plaintiff seeks to hold the Iroquois School District liable for this alleged constitutional injury under a municipal liability theory.”
In moving for summary judgment, the defendants argued that the plaintiff “has failed to produce evidence of a substantive due process violation. Alternatively, they contend that Loftus is entitled to qualified immunity. The defendants further contend that the school district cannot be held liable under §1983 because it did not enact any policy, practice or custom which could be identified as the moving force behind the plaintiff’s alleged constitutional injury.”
The court found that there was evidence of a substantive due process violation, pursuant to the “state-created danger” theory, a doctrine that holds that state actors can be liable under § 1983 for private harm which befalls a citizen where “state authority is affirmatively employed in a manner that injures the citizen or renders him ‘more vulnerable to injury from another source than he … would have been in the absence of state intervention.’” Bright v. Westmoreland County, 443 F.3d 276, 281 (3d Cir.2006)
The plaintiff satisfied, at least in terms of surviving summary judgment, the requisite elements for the doctrine – “(1) the harm ultimately caused to the victim was foreseeable and fairly direct; (2) the state actor acted with a degree of culpability that shocks the conscience; (3) a relationship between the state and the plaintiff existed such that the plaintiff was a foreseeable victim of the defendant’s acts, or a member of a discrete class of persons subjected to the potential harm brought about by the state’s actions, as opposed to a member of the public in general; and (4) a state actor affirmatively used his or her authority in a way that created a danger to the citizen or that rendered the citizen more vulnerable to danger than had the state not acted at all.” Bright, 443 F.3d at 281.
The court found it significant that Loftus “fully appreciated the need for better matting to the point that she approached the athletic director about the issue, unsuccessfully, and informed other parents of this fact. Despite this awareness, Loftus allowed the introduction of the twist-down cradle to proceed in the unmatted LGI room.”
The court next turned to the plaintiff’s claim that the school district was liable under §1983 because it didn’t allocate the necessary funding or provide the proper training to Loftus that would create a safer environment.
“Budgetary decisions of this kind do not reflect deliberate indifference for purposes of establishing municipal liability under § 1983,” wrote the court, citing Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 128-29, 112 S. Ct. 1061, 117 L. Ed. 2d 261 (1992)
The court also added that the plaintiff failed “to establish a viable §1983 claim against the School District premised upon the district’s failure to properly train Loftus. The alleged failure to train Loftus was neither the cause of the plaintiff’s alleged constitutional injury nor a display of deliberate indifference to her rights.”
Heather Hinterberger v. Iroquois School District and Sally Loftus; W.D. Pa.;
Case No. 1:08-cv-317-SJM; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138268; 9/26/12
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Thomas V. Myers, LEAD ATTORNEY, Nichols & Myers, PC, Erie, PA; Marissa Savastana Watts, T. Warren Jones, MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton, Erie, PA. (for defendants) Richard A. Lanzillo, LEAD ATTORNEY, Knox, McLaughlin, Gornall & Sennett, Erie, PA.
