West v. De Block

LIRIETH WEST, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT DE BLOCK, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-08894-PGS-DEA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

September 30, 2020

Memorandum and Order

Presently before the Court are summary judgment motions filed by the Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs (ECF No. 25) and the Third-Party Defendant (ECF No. 24). This is a personal injury case involving an injury Plaintiff sustained while at a church-related hayride and bonfire event in Blairstown, New Jersey. This Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the reasons stated herein, the Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion is denied, except that of Phebe De Block whose motion is granted, and the Third-Party Defendant's motion is granted.

The parties in this case are: Plaintiff, Lirieth West ("Plaintiff"); Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, Samuel Robert De Block¹ and Eugenia De Block, who are husband and wife (the "De Blocks"), and Phebe De Block (Robert's mother); and Third-Party Defendant, Calvary Bible Church of East Stroudsburg, Inc. ("Calvary").

There are no facts alleging that Phebe De Block was involved in any manner with the incident at issue in this case. Therefore, Phebe De Block's summary judgment motion is granted.

I.

Plaintiff Lirieth West resides in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, and was a parishioner at Calvary at the time of the incident at issue here. (Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1).

Calvary is a Christian church located in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. (Calvary Statement of Material Facts ("Calvary SOMF") ¶ 14, ECF No. 24-1). Calvary is also a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Calvary SOMF ¶ 10).

The De Blocks own, operate, and reside at a 4.7-acre commercial farm in Blairstown, New Jersey, where Plaintiff sustained her injuries. (De Block Statement of Material Facts ("De Block SOMF") ¶ 5, ECF No. 25-2); (see Pl.'s Counterstatement of Material Facts ("PCSOMF") ¶ 3, ECF No. 31). Robert is a farmer while his wife, Eugenia, is a housewife and occasional farmer. (PCSOMF ¶ 3). The De Blocks are longtime parishioners of Calvary, and Robert De Block has served as a member of Calvary's Board of Elders, the church's spiritual governing board, for several years. (De Block SOMF ¶ 16).

For the past several years, Calvary has sponsored an autumn social outing (the "Fellowship Event") at the De Blocks' farm in Blairstown. (Id. ¶¶ 7-11). The Fellowship Event was free of charge and consisted of a hayride followed by a bonfire. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 11). The purpose of the event is to allow for Calvary's parishioners and their families, as well as a few non-Calvary members, to socialize with one another outside of a normal church setting. (Id. ¶ 6). The parties dispute the exact year in which the Fellowship Event was first held, but it appears that the event began in themid-to-late 2000s, and occurred almost annually thereafter, including 2015, the year in question. (See PCSOMF ¶ 3).

The incident at issue took place at the Fellowship Event on the evening of October 25, 2015. (De Block SOMF ¶ 5). The event began at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended around 10:00 p.m. (See id. ¶ 17). Roughly fifty to sixty people were in attendance, and most people in attendance, including Plaintiff, were not farmers and did not possess farming experience. (PCSOMF ¶ 3). The event had been advertised in Calvary's bulletin, and the Pastor announced the event to the congregation during church services for a few weeks leading up to the event. (De Block SOMF ¶ 9).

There were multiple wagons hitched to tractors for the hayride. (PCSOMF ¶ 1). Each wagon had hay spread along the floor, and bales of hay were used as seats on the wagons as well as for steps onto and off the wagons. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 3). Robert De Block provided and loaded all the bales of hay. (Id. ¶ 3); (see Robert De Block Dep. 36:24-25, 63:12-18). The dimensions of the hay bales were 14 inches x 18 inches x 33 inches. (PCSOMF ¶ 3); (De Block SOMF ¶ 20). The bales of hay were not secured and could easily move if someone stepped on them. (PCOSMF ¶ 3). Robert De Block and other Calvary parishioners set up the wagons and tractors for the hayrides, while Eugenia De Block assisted with the bonfire setup. The Fellowship Event attendees did not sign any liability waivers for the activities.

Plaintiff attended the Fellowship Event with her then-husband and their three children. (De Block SOMF ¶ 13). Plaintiff wore UGG boots to the event. (See Deposition of Lirieth West 141:21-22, Mar. 19, 2019, Ex. 10 to Del Bove Cert., ECF No. 25-10). Plaintiff was seated in a red wagon hitched to a John Deere tractor for the hayride. (De Block SOMF ¶ 27).

At approximately 6:15 p.m., before the hayride began, however, and while the wagon and tractor were still idle, Plaintiff attempted to descend from the wagon as she needed additional blankets. As she turned herself backward to step down from the wagon onto a bale of hay that was being used as a step (id.), Plaintiff alleges that as she put her left leg down, the hay bale moved, causing her to fall backwards and strike the ground with her back and head. (Id.). Few people, if any, witnessed the fall, but many attendees saw Plaintiff on the ground immediately afterward. (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10, 12, 13).

After she fell, Plaintiff alleges that she lost consciousness for an unknown period of time and vaguely remembers the hayride or events thereafter. (PCSOMF ¶ 2). Neither an ambulance nor any emergency medical service was called. (De Block SOMF ¶ 43). Despite the fall, Plaintiff returned to the wagon and participated in the hayride and the bonfire. (See West Dep. 153-159). After she left the event, Plaintiff claims that she went to a hospital in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, where she received medical care. (Id. at 164:17-20). Plaintiff alleges that she sustained numerous physical injuries to her head, neck, ankle, and back, as well as mental and emotional injuries. (Compl. ¶ 16).

Plaintiff filed a one-count complaint on October 23, 2017, suing the De Blocks for negligence. The complaint asserts that the De Blocks negligently caused Plaintiff her injuries because they failed to provide a proper secured step to board and exit the wagon; failed to provide an attendant to assist boarding and exiting the wagon; failed to warn her about stepping onto the hay bale; and failed to adhere to state, local, and industry standards for steps and hand rails. (PCSOMF ¶ 1); (see Compl. ¶¶ 17-29). The De Blocks, on the other hand, allege that although no specific individual was assigned to assist people board and alight the wagons, other assistance was provided. (De Block SOMF ¶ 21). The parties agree that Robert De Block provided to theattendees verbal safety instructions about this conduct during the hayride, but the content of the instructions he provided is disputed. (PCSOMF ¶ 3); (De Block SOMF ¶ 25).

The De Blocks subsequently filed a Third-Party Complaint against Calvary² for common law contribution and indemnification arising out of Plaintiff's injuries, alleging, chiefly, that Calvary sponsored and organized the event. (Third-Party Compl., ECF No. 15). Plaintiff has not asserted any claims against Calvary. The De Blocks and Calvary both assert immunity from any tort liability under New Jersey's Charitable Immunity Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A-7, et seq.

II.

Summary judgment is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 when the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the evidence establishes the moving party's entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986).

A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant, and it is material if, under the substantive law, it would affect the outcome of the suit. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986); United States ex rel. Greenfield v. Medco Health Sols., Inc., 880 F.3d 89, 93-94 (3d Cir. 2018). In considering a motion for summary judgment, a district court may not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence; instead, the non-moving party'sevidence "is to be believed and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Marino v. Indus. Crating Co., 358 F.3d 241, 247 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255).

Once the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the party opposing the motion must establish that a genuine issue as to a material fact exists. Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Lacey Twp., 772 F.2d 1103, 1109 (3d Cir. 1985). The party opposing the motion for summary judgment cannot rest on mere allegations and instead must present actual evidence that creates a genuine issue as to a material fact for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; see also Ullrich v. United States Secy of Veterans Affairs, 457 F. App'x 132, 136 (3d Cir. 2012) ("[T]he party opposing summary judgment must support each essential element of the opposition with concrete evidence in the record."). "[U]nsupported allegations . . . and pleadings are insufficient to repel summary judgment." Schoch v. First Fidelity Bancorp., 912 F.2d 654, 657 (3d Cir. 1990); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (requiring the non-moving party to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial).

Moreover, only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under governing law will preclude the entry of summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48; Greenfield, 880 F.3d at 93. If a court determines, "after drawing all inferences in favor of [the non-moving party], and making all credibility determinations in his favor - that no reasonable jury could find for him, summary judgment is appropriate." Alevras v. Tacopina, 226 F. App'x 222, 227 (3d Cir. 2007).

III.

In determining the parties' liabilities, ...