Watson v. Methacton School Dist.

• Decision Date: 14 May 2007
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 05-2303.
• Parties: Monica WATSON, Plaintiff, v. METHACTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

513 F.Supp.2d 360

Monica WATSON, Plaintiff, v. METHACTON SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 05-2303.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

May 14, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Charles S. Cooper, Cooper & Schall, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Ellis H. Katz, Jonathan P. Riba, Sweet Stevens Tucker & Katz LLP, New Britain, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

GILES, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Alleging violations of her federal constitutional rights and 28 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff Monica Watson ("Plaintiff") filed this action on May 16, 2005 against the Methacton School District ("the District"), Barry Prager ("Prager"), Principal of Methacton High School ("the high school"), James Van Horn ("Van Horn"), President of the Methacton school board and David C. Evans ("Evans"), Superintendent of the Methacton school board, seeking damages, court costs and attorney's fees. On November 10, 2005, Defendants filed a third party action against minor Robert Hudome ("Hudome"), who was driving the vehicle that struck Plaintiff's vehicle, as well as Gregory Dargan ("Dargan"), his stepfather.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants engaged in state action violative of her due process right of bodily integrity as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment by organizing a post-prom celebration that was held on the high school's campus, encouraging students to stay up all night and permitting attendees departing the Party at 6:00 a.m. to drive their own vehicles, thereby creating an obvious danger of vehicular accidents. The parties have engaged in discovery. Before the court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), which is now ripe for decision based upon a full record. For the reasons that follow, the, motion for summary judgment is granted.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), the alleged facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, follow. Plaintiff was injured in a head-on, collision with Hudome on May 17, 2003 at approximately 8:15 a.m. on Ridge Pike in Lower Providence, Pennsylvania in Montgomery County. (Pl.'s Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 45, 47.) While Hudome does not recall the collision itself, he believes that it occurred after he fell asleep while operating his vehicle. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. ¶¶ 76-77.) At the time of the accident Hudome was a junior at the high school.

Hudome and a date, Allison Lord ("Lord"), attended their prom the evening of May 16, 2003, the night prior to the accident. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. ¶¶ 42-43.) After the prom ended, Hudome and Lord went to the high school, which was the site of the Post-Prom Celebration ("the Party"), where they stayed from approximately 11:15 p.m. until 6:15 a.m. the next morning. (Pl.'s. Amend. Compl. ¶ 9; Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. ¶¶ 44, 59.)

After leaving the Party the morning of May 17th, Hudome and Lord drove approximately 11 minutes to the International House of Pancakes restaurant ("IHOP") in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, 5.7 miles from the high school. They remained at the IHOP for 45 to 60 minutes and had breakfast with Hudome's friend Andrew and his date. (Supp.A.Stip.¶ 3.) They left IHOP between 7:30 and 7:45 a.m. Hudome drove Lord to her home, a distance of approximately 9.2 miles. (Supp.Jt.Stip. ¶ 4.) However, before going to Lord's home, Hudome drove to Audubon, Pennsylvania to show Andrew where his date lived. (Pl.'s Resp. to Defs' Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 67.) Hudome was at Lord's home only briefly. (Hudome Dep. p. 53 ln. 7.) Thereafter, he proceeded to a nearby gas station to get gasoline. (Hudome Dep. p. 53 ln. 10-25.) This took approximately five minutes. (Hudome. Dep. p. 53-54 ln 8-3.) When he left the gas station, he turned onto Ridge Pike to head home. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 72.) Two to three minutes later he fell asleep and his vehicle crossed into Plaintiff's oncoming lane of traffic. (Pl.'s Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 1128-29; Hudome Dep. p. 54,1n. 19-20.) The result was an accident and significant injuries to Plaintiff. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. ¶¶ 72-73.)

The Party attended by Hudome and Lord was the product of the efforts by the Methacton Post-Prom Organization ("the Organization"). A group of parents and community members formed the Organization in 1999 for the purpose of organizing an annual alcohol and drug-free post-prom celebration. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 5.) Before the 2003 Party, post-prom celebrations were held in 2000,2001 and 2002 on the grounds of the high school. (Prager Dep. p. 28 ln. 11-14.)

Membership in, the Organization is open to parents in the District, as well as residents of Lower Providence and Worchester townships. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 9.) The Organization received nonprofit tax filing status and promulgated bylaws in 2004, existing as a "volunteer committee" through 2003. (Barbone Dep. p. 74 ln. 21.) It is undisputed that the Organization existed as a separate entity from the District. (Defts.' Mot, Summ. J. ¶ 6.)

The impetus for a post-prom celebration originated with the president of the high school Home and School Association (HSA). (Prager Dep. p. 23-24 ln. 24-23.) The HSA is a separate entity over which Principal Prager has no control. (Prager Dep. p. 25 ln. 3-6.) When HSA representatives spoke with Prager about hosting a post-prom celebration at the high school, he told them that he was not responsible for such an event and that the parents would have to run it. (Prager Dep. p. 27 ln. 5-9.)

The Organization consisted of multiple committees, including a steering committee, which were formed to plan and run the post-prom events. (Pefs.' Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 11.) There is no position on the steer ing committee reserved for a school district representative, and no such representative sat on the committee for the 2003 Party. The Organization was responsible for the fund-raising necessary for the postprom celebrations, including the 2003 Party. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. Ex. D.)

During the 2002-2003 academic year, Prager was employed as the principal of the high school. (Prager Dep. p. 8-9 ln. 23-4.) His interaction with the Organization, with respect to the planning of the Party, was similar to that in previous years. He met with Organization members between five and ten times in preparation for the 2003 Party. (Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 33; see also Barbone Dep. p. 13 ln. 10-12.) He met with Gene Goff and Marijane Barbone, the cochairs of the steering committee that year. (Barbone Dep. p. 16 ln. 9.) Those meetings ranged from fifteen minutes to an hour in length. (Barbone Dep. p. 16 ln. 15-16.) When Organization members met with Prager, they presented their plans for his review. (Barbone Dep. p. 12 ln. 17-22.) Logistics, such as the use of certain facilities in the building, and activities planned were also discussed. (Prager Dep. p. 30 In. 20-24.) The District did not control the daily activity in planning the Party, but the Organization did discuss the plans with Prager- for his support, if necessary. (Prager Dep. p. 81 ln. 8-18; see also Barbone Dep. p. 12 ln. 3.) Prager had authority to approve or disapprove of any aspect of the Party. (Prager Dep. p. 81 ln. 22.)

Through these meetings, the Organization kept Prager apprised of the plans for the Party. The Party was not understood by school district officials or Organization members as a school District event or a school-sponsored event. (Prager Dep. p. 80 In. 2-13.) Prager testified several times that, despite being held at the high school, the Party was not a District function, because the "event itself was not unlike any organization, parent organization that wanted to use the school building for meetings and things like that." (Prager Dep. p 80 In. 2-3; p. 81 In. 14-18.)

Prager recalled that when planning began for the 2000 post-prom celebration, there were discussions about the time the event would end and extensive discussion about making sure the students, prior to being dismissed, were fed, that they were alert and ready to go home. (Prager Dep. p. 37 In. 8-11.) He noted that Organization members specifically discussed ensuring as students departed the Party, that they were able to drive, that they got to their car safely and were on their way. (Prager Dep. p. 38 ln. 12-23.) From the beginning of planning stages for the 2000 post-prom celebration, Prager anticipated that teachers and parents would be present during the event as volunteers. (Prager Dep. p. 31 In. 10-13.) Prager anticipated that district administrators would be present to show support for the program and for student safety. (Prager Dep. p. 31-32 ln. 17-6.)

David Evans was the acting superintendent of the Methacton school board at the time of the 2003 Party. (Evans Dep. p. 10 ln. 22-24.) Evans himself knew little about the operation of the Party, as he delegated interaction with the Organization to Prager. (Prager Dep. p. 99 In. 4-8; Evans Dep. p. 21 in. 7-15.) Evans was not involved in "planning or day-to-day decision making" with respect to the Party. (Evans Dep. p. 201n. 22-24.) He had no "direct knowledge [of] the nitty gritty" of the Party or the post-prom celebrations in previous years. (Evans Dep. p. 20 In. 16-17,) Prager was to keep Superintendent Evans apprised of developments in the planning of the Party. (Prager Dep. p. 99 In. 22-24.)

Evans testified that periodically a member of the HSA would present information at either an HSA meeting or a school board meeting on how the Organization was going to use spaces within the high school. (Evans Dep. p. 34-35 ln. 21-15.) Such a presentation regarding the 2003 Party was made on May 1,2003 for which Defendant Van Horn was present. (Pl.'s Amend. Compl. ¶ 10-11.)

The Party was held from approximately 11:00 p.m. on May 16,2003 until 6:00 a.m. May 17, 2003. The Party was staffed by volunteers, which included Organization members, high school teachers and District administrators. Prager and Evans both attended ...