Plaintiff Karl Kosok (Kosok) attended a summer camp sponsored by the defendant, Y.M.C.A. in Orange County, New
Question:
Plaintiff Karl Kosok (Kosok) attended a summer camp sponsored by the defendant, Y.M.C.A. in Orange County, New York. The camp schedule included a rest period immediately following lunch. During this period the older campers were required to stay close to their cabins and engage only in quiet activity. For the younger campers bed rest was required.
One day during the rest period Kosok, then 12 years old, was invited into a cabin of 15-year-olds. Inside, the boys had rigged a galvanized pail to the end of fishing line attached to a fishing rod and raised the pail above the entrance way to the cabin by reeling in the line. When Kosok entered the cabin the 15-year-olds let out the line causing the pail to drop and hit Kosok, resulting in injuries. Kosok sued the Y.M.C.A. camp claiming it was negligent by breaching a duty to supervise the activities of the boys during the rest period.
The total number of campers in attendance at the camp was 200; the number of counselors was 33. Camp regulations did not require counselors of the 15- year-old boys to remain in the cabin during rest periods. Such counselors frequently were absent from the cabins during rest period but usually were on the cabin porch or nearby. At the time of the pail incident no counselor was present in the cabin.
ISSUE: Did the camp owe a duty to the campers to have a counselor in each cabin throughout the entire rest period?
DECISION: No, judgment for the camp.
REASONING: A duty to supervise arises when the camp is put on notice of potentially dangerous activity. Had noise or some other telltale hint emanated from the cabin a duty to supervise the events would result. No such noise or other warning event occurred in this case. Also, constant supervision at a summer camp is neither possible nor desirable. A certain amount of rough and/or boisterous play is common at summer camps and should not be suppressed unless it becomes dangerous.
1) Assume the campers in the cabin with the rigged pail did the same stunt during the rest period on the day immediately after Kosok was injured and that a second camper was injured as a result. Assume further that no counselor was on duty in the cabin at the time the second camper was injured. If the second injured camper sued the camp for negligence, might the decision of the court be different? Why or why not?
2) Assume the following additional facts: the camp was located 25 miles from a maximum-security prison; an inmate in the prison escaped one summer morning; the prison officials called the camp director to inform her of the escape; the escaped inmate entered an unattended cabin at the camp during rest period on the day following the escape and kidnapped one of the campers. The camper was rescued several days later but had been beaten by the inmate and suffered severe injuries. If the camper sued the camp for his injuries based on negligence, would the camp be liable for the injuries? Why or why not?
South-Western Federal Taxation 2019 Comprehensive
ISBN: 9781337703017
42th Edition
Authors: David M. Maloney, William A. Raabe, William H. Hoffman, James C. Young