Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-1197Benjamin D. Andreozzi Attorney ID #89271 Heather E. Verchick Attorney ID #201310 ANDREOZZI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 215 Pine St., Ste. 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-525-9124 Ben@midstatelaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff E.G., a Minor, by J.G. and S.G., Her Parents and Natural Guardians, vs. SCOTT FARRELL, SR. and KATHLEEN FARRELL and SCOTT FARRELL, JR. Plaintiffs Defendants r~ ~..~ r ' i ttlil ,~~ ,I ' 'I ~``'~1~1.,17sj~~~ :. t.e v j ~* i r .,,r ~. -, ' '~ Gar#,t~ ~;~~, ~~--,t~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA q ~I No. j ~j' ~ ~ 1 U l CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHT IMPORTANT TO YOU. a~~ ~~o3.lS~ a ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a~~ a~~ YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA, 17013 1-800-990-9108 (717) 249-3166 Benjamin D. Andreozzi Attorney ID #89271 Heather E. Verchick Attorney ID #201310 ANDREOZZI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 215 Pine St., Ste. 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-525-9124 Ben@midstatelaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff E.G., a Minor, by J.G. and S.G., Her Parents and Natural Guardians, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs vs. No. SCOTT FARRELL, SR. and KATHLEEN FARRELL and SCOTT FARRELL, JR. Defendants CIVIL ACTION -LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, through their counsel, Andreozzi & Associates, P.C., and bring this cause of action against the Defendants and aver the following: The Parties 1. Minor-Plaintiff, E.G. is a fourteen year old resident of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs J.G.. and S.G. are her adult parents and natural guardians. Initials are used to prevent public disclosure of her identity since this case involves child sexual abuse. 2. Defendant Scott Farrell, Sr. is an adult individual who resides at 5 Hilltop Circle, Carlisle, PA 17015. 3. Defendant Kathleen Farrell is an adult individual who resides at 5 Hilltop Circle, Carlisle, PA 17015. 4. Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., is an adult individual who at all times relevant resided at 5 Hilltop Circle, PA 17015, and to all belief and knowledge still resides at that address. The Abuse 5. As set forth in greater detail below, E.G. was sexually assaulted by Scott Farrell, Jr., ("Perpetrator") who is the eighteen year old son of Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. ("Perpetrator's father") and Kathleen Farrell ("Perpetrator's mother"). 6. The Perpetrator met E.G. in late January or early February of 2011 when E.G. was only twelve years old and the Perpetrator was sixteen years old. 7. At all times relevant, E.G. and the Perpetrator lived in the same neighborhood. 8. In mid-April of 2011, E.G.'s mother mentioned to the Perpetrator's father that the Perpetrator was showing an intense interest in her daughter which she thought was out of the ordinary. 9. E.G.'s mother also advised the Perpetrator's father that the relationship must stay a friendship because it would be "illegal" for it to advance beyond a friendship and that he should closely monitor the relationship. 10. The Perpetrator's father told E.G.'s mother she had nothing to worry about because the Perpetrator was a "good boy" and he merely acted young for his age and gravitated towards friendships with younger kids. 11. After this conversation, E.G.'s mother discovered information which led her to believe that the Perpetrator was romantically pursuing E.G. She called the Perpetrator's father and informed him of her discovery and instructed him the relationship needed to end and that the Perpetrator was not welcome at her house. 12. It is believed and therefore averred that in late March, or the first week of April 2011, the Perpetrators' parents became aware that the Perpetrator was being accused of sexually assaulting an eleven year old girl in an unrelated incident, and that the police were investigating the matter. 13. At no time did the Perpetrators' parents give any indication to E.G.'s parents or E.G. that the Perpetrator had been accused of sexually assaulting a young girl. 14. In fact, despite knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse of another young girl, and concerned communications from E.G.'s mother, the Perpetrator's parents continued to allow E.G. and the Perpetrator to spend time together alone and unsupervised in their house. 15. On multiple occasions in the late spring and summer of 2011, the Perpetrator psychologically manipulated, exploited, groomed, and ultimately sexually assaulted E.G. in his parents' house, as well as other locations. At all times relevant hereto the Perpetrator was sixteen years old and E.G. was twelve years old. 16. Although the Perpetrator did not intend to cause harm to E.G., his actions resulted in physical injuries, as well as severe emotional distress and psychological injuries. COUNTI E.G. vs. Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell NEGLIGENCE 17. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length. 18. At all times relevant, Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell knew that Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. was accused of having prior inappropriate sexual contact with young girls, had prior inappropriate sexual contact with young girls, and exhibited behaviors which demonstrated that he should not be left alone with a twelve year old girl. 19. At all times relevant, Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell knew, permitted, encouraged, and facilitated Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. to have contact with Minor- Plaintiff, including but not limited to, unsupervised contact on their property. 20. As the parents of a sixteen year old boy, Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell had a special relationship with Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., and they were generally responsible for raising him and setting rules and boundaries for his conduct, particularly within their home. 21. Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell owed a duty of reasonable care to Minor-Plaintiff as a result of their special relationship with Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. and as owners and possessors of their home, upon which Minor-Plaintiff was an invitee. 22. Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell were negligent, grossly negligent, and reckless as follows: a. failing to supervise or failing to adequately supervise Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. with whom they had a special relationship; b. failing to warn the Minor-Plaintiff or her parents of the risk of harm posed by Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.; c. permitting the harmful acts of Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. to take place and/or continue; d. failing to make reasonably safe the property which they possessed and/or controlled; violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 314A(3) & (4) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell, were possessors of land who held it open to the public, including Minor-Plaintiff, and, as such owed a duty of reasonable protection to Minor-Plaintiff which they violated by failing to make safe the property or provide warnings to Minor-Plaintiff and/or Minor- Plaintiffs parents after having knowledge of the dangerous propensities and tendencies of Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.; f. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 315(a) & (b) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts; g. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 317 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts; h. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 318 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell were possessors of land who permitted a third person, Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., to conduct an activity on the land and failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent him from creating an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the Minor-Plaintiff when these defendants knew or should have known of their ability to control their minor son and knew of the need and opportunity to exercise control over him; i. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts by having increased the risk of harm of injury to Minor-Plaintiff after having assumed the obligation to provide services to Scott Farrell, Jr., which was necessary for the protection of Minor-Plaintiff; j. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 344 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts; k. allowing the Minor-Plaintiff to be in the company of Defendant, Scott Farrell, Jr., when they knew or should have known and foreseen that based on his propensities towards young girls that he was a danger and threat to the Minor-Plaintiff and was likely to cause her harm; failing to take any precautions whatsoever to give protection and safety to Minor-Plaintiff from the dangerous propensities of Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., of which they had notice and knowledge, actual or constructive; m. failing to warn Minor-Plaintiff that activity engaged in by Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., would be of a harmful nature to Minor-Plaintiff and have traumatic effects on her in the future; n. permitting Minor-Plaintiff to enter or remain on their property when they knew or should have known that while Minor-Plaintiff remained on the property she was at risk to be harmed by Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.; o. negligent supervision of the property; p. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 448 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts; q. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to rescue Minor-Plaintiff after placing her in a perilous position; r. failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent further harm after rendering Minor-Plaintiff in danger of further harm; s. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to give aid or assistance to Minor-Plaintiff after rendering her in danger of further harm; t. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to prevent and delay in the appropriate care of Minor-Plaintiff; u. violation of duties set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sections 321 & 322. 23. As a direct and proximate cause of the conduct of Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr., and Kathleen Farrell, described herein, Minor-Plaintiff suffered serious physical and emotional injuries. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim of the Defendants, jointly and severally, damages in excess of the mandatory arbitration limits, in addition to other fees, costs, and interest as permitted by the law. COUNT II E.G. v. Scott Farrell, Jr. NEGLIGENCE 24. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length. 25. Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., owed Minor-Plaintiff a duty which required that he not physically molest or sexually assault her. 26. Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., mistakenly concluded the Minor-Plaintiff consented to sexual contact. 27. At all times relevant, Minor-Plaintiff did not consent to sexual contact with Scott Farrell, Jr. 28. A reasonable person in Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.'s position should have realized that Minor-Plaintiff, a twelve year old girl, did not consent to sexual touching. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim of the Defendants, jointly and severally, damages in excess of the mandatory arbitration limits, in addition to other fees, costs, and interest as permitted by the law. Respectfully submitted, Date: ~ ~~ By: Benjamin D. reozzi, Esquire Attorney ID 271 Heather E. Verchick, Esquire Attorney ID#201310 Andreozzi & Associates, P.C. 215 Pine Street, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 p: 717.525.9142 f: 717.525.9143 Counsel for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~.-' 1 Date: _.~ ~, _. ~ j i ~.---~ L T n VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct. I understand. that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~` ~~ /~ ~~-----~____..-;~~` .G. SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson i-1 r .LE0-0FF10E Sheriff fj17 T HE PROTHWTAP) 4,60t?st cumbpr,4 4.# Jody S Smith 51 Chief Deputy 2013 MAR 18 AM 9` Richard W Stewart solicitor 0M CE OF TK SKRIFr CUPEEN AND COAT 4, YLVAN IA E.G., a Minor, by J.G. and S.G., Her Parents and Natural Guardians Case Number ScotS' 2013-1197 t Farrell Sr. (et al.) SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 03/08/2013 03:06 PM-Deputy Jason Kinsler, being duly sworn according to law,served the requested Complaint& Notice by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Kathleen Farrell,who accepted as"Adult Person in Charge"for Scoff Farrell Sr.at 5 Hilltop Circle,S. Middleton Twp.,Carlisle, PA 17015. �<SON KINSLER, DEPUTY 03/08/2013 03:06 PM-Deputy Jason Kinsler, being duly sworn according to law,served the requested Complaint& Notice by"personally"handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be the Defendant,to wit: Kathleen Farrell at 5 Hilltop Circle, S. Middleton Twp., Carlisle, PA 17015. ASON KINSLER, DEPUTY 03/08/2013 03:06 PM-Deputy Jason Kinsler, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint& Notice by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Kathleen Farrell,who accepted as"Adult Person in Charge"for Scott Farrell Jr.at 5 Hilltop Circle, S. Middleton Twp.,Carlisle, PA 17015. JA,6ON KINSLER, DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $66,00 SO ANSWERS, March 12, 2013 RONW R ANDERSON, SHERIFF {c}CountySuite Sheriff,Teleosoft,Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA E.G., a Minor, CIVIL DIVISION by J.G. and S.G. her Parents and Natural Guardian, NO.: 13-1197 Civil Plaintiffs, -0rM DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARI� x*o vs. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF _e� — °o COMPLAINT T.2 C5 rr o SCOTT FARRELL, SR. and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) KATHLEEN FARRELL, and ( y a SCOTT FARELL, JR., Q Defendants. Filed on Behalf of Defendants, Scott Farrell, Sr., Kathleen Farrell and Scott Farrell, Jr. Counsel of Record for this Party: Stephen J. Summers PA I.D. #40213 SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE&SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 707 Grant Street Suite 2400, Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 261-3232 #19820 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA E.G., a Minor, CIVIL DIVISION by J.G. and S.G. her Parents and Natural Guardian, NO.: 13-1197 Civil Plaintiffs, vs. SCOTT FARRELL, SR. and KATHLEEN FARRELL, and SCOTT FARRELL, JR., Defendants, DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COWtAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants, Scoff Farrell, Sr., Kathleen Farrell and Scoff Farrell, Jr., by and through their attorneys, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. and Stephen J. Summers, 11, Esquire, and files the within Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. This action arises out of a series of incidents in which sixteen (16) year old Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. allegedly sexually assaulted twelve (12) year old Plaintiff E.G. 2. The Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Scoff Farrell, Jr.'s parents, Defendants Scoff Farrell, Sr., and Kathleen Farrell, were negligent in failing to warn Plaintiff E.G.'s parents about their son's alleged propensity to assault younger girls and in allowing the assault to occur at their home (See generally Plaintiffs' complaint, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit' ). 3. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr., and Kathleen Farrell violated the following provisions of the Restatement(Second) of Torts: § 314A—Special Relations Giving Rise to Duty to Aid or Protect § 315—General Principle § 317—Duty of Master to Control Conduct of Servant § 318—Duty of Possessor of Land or Chattels to Control Conduct of Licensee § 321—Duty to Act When Prior Conduct Is Found to Be Dangerous § 322—Duty to Aid Another Harmed by Actors Conduct § 324A—Liability to Third Person for Negligent Performance of Undertaking § 344—Business Premises Open to Public: Acts of Third Persons or Animals § 348—Intentionally Tortious or Criminal Acts Done Under Opportunity Afforded by Actors Negligence Exhibit A, 122. 4. The Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to support claims for violations of Restatement(Second) of Torts§§ 317, 322, 324A and 344. 5. Section 317 provides: § 317 Duty of Master to Control Conduct of Servant A master is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his servant while acting outside the scope of his employment as to prevent him from intentionally harming others or from so conducting himself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, if (a) the servant (i) is upon the premises in possession of the master or upon which the servant is privileged to enter only as his servant, or (ii) is using a chattel of the master, and (b) the master (i) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his servant, and (ii) knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control. 6. Comment a to this section states, "The rule stated in this Section is applicable only when the servant is acting outside the scope of his employment." Accordingly, section 317 assumes an employer/employee relationship which has not been alleged in the complaint and did not exist here. 7. Section 322 provides: § 322 Duty to Aid Another Harmed by Actor's Conduct If the actor knows or has reason to know that by his conduct, whether tortious or innocent, he has caused such bodily harm to another as to make him helpless and in danger of further harm, the actor is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent such further harm. 8. The Plaintiffs' complaint does not allege that either Defendant Scoff Farrell, Sr. or Kathleen Farrell personally caused bodily harm to Plaintiff E.G. so as to make her helpless and in danger of future harm. The allegations are that they failed to prevent the initial harm, which would make Section 322 inapplicable to this case. 9. Section 324A provides: § 324A Liability to Third Person for Negligent Performance of Undertaking One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking. 10. Comment b to this section states, "This Section applies to any undertaking to render services to another, where the actor's negligent conduct in the manner of performance of his undertaking, or his failure to exercise reasonable care to complete it, or to protect the third person when he discontinues it, results in physical harm to the third person or his things. It applies both to undertakings for consideration, and to those which are gratuitous." There are no allegations in the complaint that Defendants Scoff Farrell, Sr. or Kathleen Farrell formed any agreement to render services to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, this allegation should be dismissed. 11. Section 344 provides: § 344 Business Premises Open to Public: Acts of Third Persons or Animals A possessor of land who holds it open to the public for entry for his business purposes is subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the land for such a purpose, for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons or animals, and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to (a) discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or (b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it. 12. There is no allegation or indication that Defendants Scoff Farrell, Sr. or Kathleen Farrell held their home out as a place of business and therefore this section is clearly inapplicable. WHEREFORE, Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr., Kathleen Farrell and Scott Farrell, Jr. respectfully request this Honorable Court strike paragraphs 22(g), 22(i) and 220) of the Plaintiffs' complaint in their entirety and paragraph 22(u) of the Plaintiffs' complaint insofar as it relates to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 322 pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) as the Plaintiffs have not stated claim under these sections of the Restatement (Second) of Torts for which relief can be granted. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS,McDoNNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE&SKEET, P.C. 'gieptiAn J. Summers Counsel for Defendants MAR-21-2013 08 :10 AM HACK MOUNTAIN PROF. INS. 570 714 t100 P.02 �8I2A/�013 13:�i X0848 P,001l001 y f ElaaJamin D.Andmzzl Amway 10 X9771 '-- Hap810t Attmoy TD 0201310 � "a IA P-C. { X21 A�A9M�OC TB�, 2I B Pfau$!.,BtO.200 . . , .• a. .w...+. P, ' HtrrWY g,PA 17101 717.8ZS-914 0-T 8aa�mldtlattl�tlr,aan 70' E,Q M�1ar,� W TM COURT OF CO)AWN FLEA9 by 1Z.and 9.G., =JAWti.AND COUNTY.PENNMVANIA Fiat Parents attd?�atuR'a14�zatd�sns, vs. No. r ' SCOTT FARREl,t'& KAT'HLDIN FATS LU end' SCOTT F,4R ELL,It Dtfendwus CML ACTION-LAW " Nt>rr=To YdU HAVE SON SUED IN COURT.IF YOU WISH TO DEPEND AGAINST THE TVMTY (Zo) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AlID NOTICE ARE SIRVW, BY BNTXp,Wq A V1rRP rEN APPHAXANCR P81Lf0M4LLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WArMt1 WITH THE COURT'YOUP.DEFMES OR OBJECI743M TO THE CLASO SET PMTH AdAWT YOU.YOU MM WARNM THAT ,MTXAM-To 04 so THE cAsE NtAY PROCEED WITHOUT You AND A AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT 11 MOVT FURTHM NC1 CLAIMEXI IN TBE COMPL&M OR FOR ANY OnM C� ilk BY THE pLAlNTUT, YOU MAY LOSE MONEY Ott PROPF.�E"�?� IMPDR.TANT-rO YOU, — N hty now C� ki r 03/21/2013 9:49AM (GMT-04:00) MAR-21-2013 88:11 AM BACK MOUNTAIM PROF. INS. 370 714 8100 P.33 08/24/20~3 19'2T 80880 M.041fOdf 4 ' v i i r1 F fio* In I) Ask 6=1 l�eetlaer$.Y"Ick � Atli�uly xD�.Ol 7l0 AHDXWM#Ai5St.? UT88,P.G. 315 Pifa►9L,frte•200 14PA f7t01 71742 124 BrooMAMbWAMM Aumay fir Pla lws yByyya Mitaeetn INS}TMF�tEEGRt��MTT OF gC�t3} YION PELT EAS AMA Ha Pomu and Natural 011901m, �'lainti� No. i SCOTT FAMLL.SX. i and' KATHLEEN FAMELL i ewd i SCOTT FAMVo,JR. ne aatj CM ACTION-LALW i M NOW c,=c*c Plaintiffs,through ditic sxouml,Aadmomd dt Assooiat4 P.C.,tuui brig tu�s *use of action agabut dw Defendwft and aver the following: r a 03/21/2013 9:49AM (GMT-04:00) PIAR-21-2013 68: 11 AM BACK MOUNTAIN PROF. INS. 570 71+4 3100 P.04 The U8J1n/�p1S 1d;1!! argbbi Y,VUtlggl L I ' jam= i. i 1. Riiinor-Plsin:4 E.G. is a fourteen year old realdmat of C=berlsnd Ct utq, i p6mUylvsuria. plaintiffs 1.0.. and 9.0. met her adult pa mtr and>a tW gasrd6m. Initiats axe U al to pmeant public disclamue of her Idl y since d9s case bMlyn child mual abu m, i 2. Dcfendent Scott Faurti Sr. is to adult individual who tams at 5 7lilltop Circle, Carlisle,PA 17015. 3. Defendant Kathleen Farrell is an admit inftouasl mto mafdes at 5 Hilltop Mar, Ceciisle,PA 17015, 4. Dofendent Soots P 11,Jr.,is an m1*lt U dividuml who at all dmea relevant resided at 5 Mlltep Circle,PA 17015,and to all belief and k mowtcdp still reside®At that address. Tho Abot $. As set faith in pfttar detztll below,E-0.wad sexually assaulted by Scott)E eMll. Jr., ("perpetratar"') who is the cigbt= pear old son of Defendaaats Scarf Farrell, Sr. ("PCxpo xwz's father")and Fora n("Pwpeftloft mother'}. 6. The Perpahaw mat aG.in We January or early Febsvary of 2011 whm R.G.was, only twelve years old and the Papet ator was sixteen ya>ara aid 7. At an Hanes relevant,EA and the Pwpettedor lived In tha same nei0bmhocA d I III I 03/21/2013 9:49AM (GMT-04:00) MAR-21-2013 09 :12 AM HACK MOUNTAI14 PROF. INS. 570 714 3100 P. 05 ca�;eai�oia 'a:at soaet N.00troat f' W'3 ' S. In rr WApeil of 2011,163 motlu Aie dwd to the Peapokmoes fadw dart the Perpcttr wr wag showing an inteta;se int erat In lxvr d k&w whieh she thotWt wsa ant of the ordmery, 9. ZA a mother kh o advised the ftrpstratces Wher drat the rchdonabip mutt stay a friondsbip beefed,it would be '1114661" ttbr it to adVamc beyond a frlondddp anti tbat he should ' closely monitor tiro rolatiotaslrip• i 10. The Papstaator's father told 1 LO.s mother she nothing to worry about bwaxw the Perpeelmtw was a*good boy°and he>n ady metal yottng for his age and gm tat d towardr frimdd3ips with younift kids, Ii. ANT this 0pavmad0116 B.GA mothcr dbooveftd InA mretlor, which led her to believe that the Perpetrator was romeatt oWy pumleg E.G. She called the?ftW1W&s father and informed him of hex'&-sway and hmtrumd him tite relaftonahf P neoded to wd aria that the Perpetrator wo not welcome at her bom, 12. It is beli"md and thertdore&Trod that in late March,or the first week of April 2011,t1m P'apetr-WW pamnto•bomme aw*V 0*rho pftVgWtW w"bdtdg a0OU"4 of s=Mny assaulting aid eleven yew old girl La an tt htsd incident,and that the police were imvesf Wrq the matter, 13. At oo time dill the Pmpotmto&parents give any indicativm to E.Q's ptartrtts or L.G.that the Perpetrator bad barn accused of aa=Wly assaulting a youn*girl. I i 03/21/2013 9:49AM (GMT--04:00) MAR-21-2013 28 :12 AM SACK MOUNTAIN PROF. INS. 570 714 3100 �{^ P.„06 • I M.ff iVf rV IN 1.7.OV roam r.VYl��gl I , r lzt Wt, date k+owiedge of the aIIep*W of,xactW &buss of anotW yoang i • Rid, Sid ooaamod onrnrmitaidom fmm R.0.a mother,the pmratrati X rnterlt,R nantlnutui to V a11ow E.�'�.and the!'cs�c>�ttor m rpcud�to8Cttler stone mad ttt�ttpot'Yiarsi in thalt hou3o, 15,. On multiple oacmdom in the late spring said mm= 2011, the perpetrator F ' paytshO101*811y msitlpaletad,exploited,groomed► sod Wfimatcly sexually "Tainted W. in his }•smuts'lkatm,as well as O*cr laovA6n . AV 4 liana■rolmat bomta tho rorrm mr wca aixum Yeam Old acrd$.0, was twelve years old. !! 16. Although*6 Ptttpote me did trot in=d to MW harm to F-0,,his actions tetanal in pbydCal Wuries,as well as weiv anotiOiial d.i*eu STA psyahologlosi Njudel, COUNT Y E-1G.vs.Seott Parrett~8r.sued Ka*lnn Farrrell LICENCE l'. The s1k49ati0ns set for<h in the prb"diag P=SrVhs are incmpormed by rafarrnco as mast forth at leugth. 18, At all tames xatayant,bow Soon Pmmrctl,Sr.and Xailg an Farrell knew tht npisnirvo rusm rirrill, ra an s I II, I I1 IPt + , , , as a . t t ► t Y , girls, had r for inapPuapsiats sexual =A=with yotmg,girls,, and exhftod beh&viml wtd,* demonstratad that he shoul4maot be lett stone with r twrlve you old girl. 03/21/2093 9:49AM (GMT-04:00) MAR-21-2012 08:13 AM BACK MOUNTAIN PROF. INS. 570 714 3100 P.97 - irc►ee4 v,cot/un� 10. Al all times rdrlevv*4 DefWants &wtt panv% 9r. ad MWdsau F wee know, 9 4 I 1 #fTlOf wsVd, *nd faailltgtad babadut gCM Fowl, Jr. to have C with 141;i11pT- FtalntifP,ineludizis but not limited to,tansaDet bed conteac on thWr tmP". 20. AJ tl16 POW' of it lid yew did bay, Defeadoto Soots Ferrell, fir. and Kathleen Fa"I1 h2d a spe641 tektioxxstiip with )74t'.badst $co>:t carrell, SY,, and t1>ty were generally responsible for roddng him anti eetitg rules And boundatim for his ecoduct, gardtulaxly vAWh that r bouts. 21. Defen4nb Scott Fextreil,Sr.and Kathleen Farrell owed a duty of reasonable QGM i W Minor-'PlainttfFas I►result Of ftk spvM neWonehip%M Ddwdaat Sott F"11,Sr. amd ae o%%ers and ptsssessars of their bay,upon w*%M pt p1Pw1x £vras an invitee+. ��. Dvfen&nts Scott Farrell, Sr. aid ViNoex; Faxralt worn ncgli$ant, goaaly regiigont,end rockless as Wows. a_ fishing 10 NPWVL"oY fAil V to AdcquaxaiY 4upervisc Defends at Scott Farrell,Jr. vAth whom they had a xspe W i+elatianship; 6. fhiling to warn ft MirnruFlalntiff nr her pUeuta of tits:risk of harm pored by Deftdot Sett F ll.In; c, pormitting the bmn*l aGt3 of Dafw4wl swl Farrell,Jr.to seise plege and/or continue; H 03/21/2013 9:49AM (GMT-04:00) p1AR- 21-2013 08 :13 fA'1 BACK MOUNTAIN PROF. INS. 570 714 SiOS P.68 6o/4V/cV1d Id:JI F 001/001 ALI f3 7(v i • i I d. to stca' �ot:ts6.y tea 1#se pmpscty wFsictl ttstry psta eztcttor c�s�alled; ' � t a, vtot#t 0n 0f *hWftd undff Patmylvx&law,fiord=3'.4A•(3) I (4)of$0 Ro (Sm d)afTorm bomm De&atsc mu Scott F&Yell, I" Sr.a"Xadd n PunD,va"poesia.m of 1=4 who betd it opim to the pw'N in dwtiim Mai or-1>�arid,eo such owed a fty of reasonable prdwdou to b9norAWatiff'whcit they violated by f0ng w nuke the VmPutY Or TaMVW&w=izp to Mist -Plaintiff aad/or tvl=' r- E ' Ptairstiffs-pamU t Wing kncivvledge of the d emus pswpx,jwittes W. tettdmoff►of p+afa?IStdud$cod Farrell,it.; f; violation of duties W powd w dw Pwaisybrta:ia 14w,Seotloxt$f 5(ss)a(b) of the RmtawmM( am)of Teas- g, violation of d4es I&poaed tgaft Pcwgh,=iP.law,Section.3 17 of the fkwts'mat(Semd)of Tarts, h. vtoiat W Of duties Im�under Peanayllvaeia law,Sudott 31$o f the ftsstatemmbnt(Second}of Torlss because Defindanta Scat;Farrell,Sr.erA Fj#N n Farred vme poas*3m oflandwbo pbo dt%d ate,puts► Defamimt Scott Farrel#,Ir.,to cundud an a6N*aft the lead tsnd mad to -mattim n+esoart sbic'aara to pmvent b1m from"cgdng an mra w"t risk of"lapdity ham to the Minor- as u iffwhen theca defestdwt*Imp+or 03/21/2013 9:st3AM (GMT--04:00) MAR-21-2013 06 : 14 AM BACK MOUNTAIN PROF. INS. 570 71,4 3100 P.09 P,001)001 II '� zii�o(1 i should h"wa bowa d%*Ability to control Chair n,Or non a,A kw,of s If tbA Goad ad opporttmjW so exw"ooatrol over him, M t 3. vtalatioa pf duties!t d�Pctu�ylaattiat taw,l3aetl 324A the Rat(S000tul)of Torte by havf��the risk of . *lay to Muwr-Pleind#etber having mumod tha obltgaticn,to provi& sets M to Soon FamR,Jr.,which warn nemMy im he prateotion of Iviiaor.l?hZintift; r l• yialatt�ian of dut3ea ltiapamd vndsr Pormsylvaia law,smfit�rft ltostatr=Mt (Sacoad)of TOM; k. of ktwfng tht Mincm•Plaintifl'to be in t�A Ompny of Dgfa W&A Scott l errell„Jr.,whan thlY knew or 861Wd havo known and foreaoe»tb4t bawd an h1s}sroPW2111as towafds)=D9 girls that ha was a daapex and threat to the M'inar-p'aintWand was HWy to owa her harm, 1. failing to take nay prtcmatiatls whumver to give pmtection and aaffety to Minm-PitantiS from tho dangerous ptnpelmitift of ncrmmh t Scott . 1:s rell,Jr.,of Wwah tfntyhad notice%ad knowlcdgy aahW or 000nairttWvc; �l. W1108 toy wam MfnonPlaindff:th#t antivit r engaged In by Defendant Scott Fan4 Jr.,would be.o of a here ew naft"to Minor-Pleafflff eud have trantgntia iffbats an fw In the fw i 03/21/2013 9:49AM (GMT-04,00) i MAR-21-2013 06 : 18 All BACK MOUNTAIN PROF. INS. 570 T14 �b i0tl0Y M,Ppi/UOi. I' n. pg=hftg mnnt plantin to ambc or ratmin on their propeM v4m they knew at should We bmwa tW while)4aor4lsiattff muWn W an tha pro"*ae was at rhk to be'harmM by Defendaat&mtt rm 41,X; i r a. neglSgc�t supat vl�on oYthr pmp"-. p. vtolmloa of dv tmpow tmdcr pawylyenk law,Sewall zathe Restatam4at(Seem of Torts; i , i 4 fn %j to take TWMftble and neaeseacy to rmue Minoriplainti after plating tsar in a perlloust position; r. failbg to exeociae reasomsblt we to preyed further harm after mdetb* mimr•X'laiatifF in dear of tlatiter halm; a. w1ing to take reftoo blse and ne eawy stops to give aid or assisWee to !viutorwPiait►tifl`Oft mdetiag het m der of ftirt w bma-, t. failtng to tdz remvAle 4nd neaaaswy saps to prt wt and Way in the appta time Cato of Minor-?1AbmA , u, Wm of ddtiss set faith in the Restatemerst(gwwA)of Torts,9codons 921 03/21/2013 9:49AM (GMT-04:OO) MAR-21-2e13 08: 15 AM B -4CK MOUNTAIN PROF. INS. 570 71, 3100 P. 11 JO/2V/�YI� w 4N roaaa r,CU1/001 I 23. As a&*a ad ju+otcltta*awtb of the aanduat of Defenden U Ewd Farrell,Sr.,, a tad KmWm F"I.desodbed beret, M PWnW merad ndous od and awtianal �: injuries. . WHEREFORE, lslaktiffs owm of the Dlba wa, jointly and savwrally, data Aps in cxcoss of the mandatory arbitration-limits, in &Mdoa to oftr fiw, casts, and it►te>rasit as perrnf*by Tho JAW. COUNT D f ' $.G,v.to*F"?Jr. NEGLJGFNCE i . i 24. The alieesdiou M fth in The p+ =&s pwaxwhs we 1=rpm*d by rcfcrc "es if Oat lbrth at length. 25. Defa u ant Scott FamkL Jr,Owed Nfmor-PWrdff a duty wEch requbvd drat he sot phyaisally molest dr saniny as=*ber. 26. 'DcfMd'ant Soots FIstmil,Jr.,mica mlly oprclucLed diet M por-Alain iff oonaeutad to$arid Cosh', ' 4 77. At all times rolovaat,Miuor••plait>dff did not consemt to xexnal cnntact with 9cQti 3�arrdl,3r. 39. A rcasanable pinr n is DdcmdM!Stets FSOU,YWS position ehovld have realltzed that Mirmr Plain*3ff.a twelvo yaar old girl,did rat eanwt to acxual touching. 03%21/2013 9:49AM (GMT-04:00) MAR-21-2013 08: 16 AM BACK MOUNTAIN PROF. INS. 370 71,+ 3100 P. 12 tlaJ1a/�a1y �yno �oNlil M.aul;aal i I i; e ' WMEFOM Plaindh maim of d* Ddsa&WA jointly acrd eavcaaW. dteaart In axoesa Of &a cWeAtory arbitration limits, In additim to other ibex, mft and I:a exert u pemaitwd by the taw. RAIMMUY mdxdtWd, 1`aate: HY: Benjamin D. Cal Esquire A#topey fit Fk Whip r&Yenhbnk,$atlaire Aum my YDiOI310 Ancr+ewul&AstaoWo,P.C. 215 pint 9t tak gttita 200 RmdgbnrL PA 17101 p: 717.5Z5��9142 f; 717. 1143 Coutmi for Pwntiffa 03/21/2013 9:49AM (GMT-04:00) i MAR-21-2013 06: 16 AM BACK MOUNTAIN PROF. INS. Z70 714 3100 P• 13 031'10!1073 ;1;38 00647 P.002/014 y10 i YOU SHOULD TAKE IM PAPER TO YOUR LAWYHR AT 01X& YF YOU DO NOT HAVB A LAW YW3 00 TO OIL rEMO 8 TIM a"=8EIT FORTH'SS'LO aV TO WNW YOU CAN(MT LEGAL HW, CUM RLAM COUNTY DAR ASMATYON 1 .+•w wow��rww'u wu�w Cwii *PA,17013 I on 9N9190 (717)24941K 1 • i t 4 I, I ' 1 is I • 1 � 1 I � 1 4 ' 1 03/21/2013 9:49AM (GMT-04:00) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint have been served via first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this 9thth day of April 2013, addressed as follows: Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esquire ANDREOZZI &ASSOCIATES 215 Pine Street, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 SUMMERS, WDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE&SKEEL, P.C. A 0 Steph6n J. Summers Counsel for Defendants Benjamin D.Andreozzi w Attorney ID#89271 cu Heather E.Verchick � Attorney ID#201310 t�� N p ANDREOZZI&ASSOCIATES,P.C. ��— '� ocD 215 Pine St., Ste.200 D i Harrisburg,PA 17101 c 717-525-9124 �`? t Ben @midstatelaw.com ..ta Attorney for Plaintiff re> < E.G., a minor, by J.G. and S.G. her parents and natural guardians, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs vs. No. 13-1197 Civil SCOTT FARRELL, SR., and CIVIL ACTION - LAW KATHLEEN FARRELL and SCOTT FARRELL, JR. Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty(20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to . you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. _ IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA, 17013 (717) 249-3166 Benjamin D.Andreozzi Attorney ID#89271 Heather E.Verchick Attorney ID#201310 ANDREOZZI&ASSOCIATES,P.C. 215 Pine St., Ste.200 Harrisburg,PA 17101 717-525-9124 Ben @midstatelaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff E.G., a minor, by J.G. and S.G. her parents and natural guardians, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs VS. No. 13-1197 Civil SCOTT FARRELL, SR., and CIVIL ACTION - LAW KATHLEEN FARRELL and SCOTT FARRELL, JR. Defendants AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Plaintiffs,through their counsel, Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esq., and bring this Amended Complaint against the Defendants and aver the following: The Parties 1. Plaintiff, E.G. is a fourteen year old resident of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. J.G.. and S.G. are her adult parents and natural guardians. Initials are used to prevent public disclosure of her identity since this case involves child sexual abuse. 2. Defendant Scott Farrell,Sr. is an adult individual who resides at 5 Hilltop Circle, Carlisle, PA 17015. 3. Defendant Kathleen Farrell is an adult individual who resides at 5 Hilltop Circle, Carlisle, PA 17015. 4. Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., is an adult individual who at all times relevant resided at 5 Hilltop Circle, PA 17015, and to all belief and knowledge still resides at that address. The Abuse 5. As set forth in greater detail below, E.G. was sexually assaulted by Scott Farrell, Jr., ("Perpetrator")who is the eighteen year old son of Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. ("Perpetrator's father") and Kathleen Farrell ("Perpetrator's mother). 6. The Perpetrator met E.G. in late January or early February of 2011 when E.G. was only twelve years old and the Perpetrator was sixteen years old. 7. At all times relevant, E.G. and the Perpetrator lived in the same neighborhood. 8.. In mid-April of 2011, E.G.'s mother mentioned to the Perpetrator's father that the Perpetrator was showing an intense interest in her daughter which she thought was out of the ordinary. 9. She also advised the Perpetrator's father that the relationship must stay a friendship because it would be "illegal" for it to advance beyond a friendship and that he should closely monitor the relationship. 10. The Perpetrator's father told E.G.'s mother she had nothing to worry about because the Perpetrator was a "good boy" and he merely acted young for his age and gravitated towards friendships with younger kids. 11. After this conversation, E.G.'s mother discovered information which led her to believe that the Perpetrator was romantically pursuing E.G. She called the Perpetrator's father and informed him of her discovery and instructed him the relationship needed to end and that the Perpetrator was not welcome at her house. 12. It is believed and therefore averred that in late March, or the first week of April 2011,the Perpetrators'parents became aware that the Perpetrator was being accused of sexually assaulting an eleven year old girl in an unrelated incident, and that the police were investigating the matter. 13. At no time did the Perpetrators'parents give any indication to E.G.'s parents or E.G. that the Perpetrator had been accused of sexually assaulting a young girl. 14. In fact, despite knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse of another young girl, and concerned communications from E.G.'s mother,the Perpetrator's parents continued to allow E.G. and the Perpetrator to spend time together alone and unsupervised in their house. 15. On multiple occasions in the late spring and summer of 2011,the Perpetrator psychologically manipulated, exploited, groomed, and ultimately sexually assaulted E.G. in his parents'house, as well as other locations. At all times relevant hereto the Perpetrator was sixteen years old and E.G. was twelve years old. 16. Although the Perpetrator did not intend to cause harm to E.G.,his actions resulted in physical injuries, as well as severe emotional distress and psychological injuries. COUNT E.G.vs. Scott Farrell, Sr. and:Kathleen Farrell NEGLIGENCE. 17. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length. 18. At all times relevant, Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell knew that Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. was accused of having prior inappropriate sexual contact with young girls, had prior inappropriate sexual contact with young girls, and exhibited behaviors which demonstrated that he should not be left alone with a twelve year old girl. 19. At all times relevant, Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell knew, permitted, encouraged, and facilitated Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.to have contact with Minor- Plaintiff, including but not limited to,unsupervised contact on their property. 20. As the parents of a sixteen year old boy, Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell had a special relationship with Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., and they were generally responsible for raising him and setting rules and boundaries for his conduct, particularly within their home. 21. Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell owed a duty of reasonable care to Minor-Plaintiff as a result of their special relationship with Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. and as owners and possessors of their home, upon which Minor-Plaintiff was an invitee. 22. Defendants Scott Farrell,'Sr. and Kathleen Farrell were negligent, grossly negligent, and reckless as follows: a. failing to supervise or failing to adequately supervise Defendant Scott Farrell,Jr. with whom they had a special relationship; b. failing to warn the Minor-Plaintiff or her parents of the risk of harm posed by Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.; C. permitting the harmful acts of Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. to take place and/or continue; d. failing to make reasonably safe the property which they possessed and/or controlled; e: violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 314A(3) & (4)of the Restatement(Second)of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell, were possessors of land who held it open to the public, including Minor-Plaintiff, and, as such owed a duty of reasonable protection to Minor-Plaintiff which they violated by failing to make safe the property or provide warnings to Minor-Plaintiff and/or Minor- Plaintiffs parents after having knowledge of the dangerous propensities and tendencies of Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.; f. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 311 of the Restatement(Second) of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell gave false information to J.G. and S.G. regarding the nature of their minor son's relationship with E.G., and J.G. and S.G. relied on this information and E.G. was harmed as a result of this reliance. g. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 315(a) & (b) of the Restatement(Second) of Torts; h. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 316 of the Restatement(Second) of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell are the parents of Scott Farrell, Jr. and they were under a duty to exercise reasonable care so as to prevent their minor son from intentionally harming Minor-Plaintiff since they knew or had reason to know that they had the ability to control their minor son, and they knew or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control; L violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 318 of the Restatement(Second) of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell were possessors of land who permitted a third person, Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., to conduct an activity on the land and failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent him from creating an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the Minor-Plaintiff when these defendants knew or should have known of their ability to control their minor son and knew of the need and opportunity to exercise control over him; j. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 319 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell had charge of Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. and knew or should have known that he was likely to cause bodily harm to others, and specifically to Minor-Plaintiff, and did not exercise reasonable care to control their minor son from harming Minor-Plaintiff, k. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 320 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell Sr. and Kathleen Farrell voluntarily took custody of Minor-Plaintiff at their residence and subjected her to association with their minor son and knew or had reason to know that they had the ability to control the conduct of their minor son and knew or should have known the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control. 1. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 324A of the Restatement(Second) of Torts by having increased the risk of harm of injury to Plaintiff after having assumed the obligation to provide services to all Plaintiffs to care for and watch Minor-Plaintiff while she was at their residence, which was necessary for the protection of Minor-Plaintiff. m. allowing the Minor-Plaintiff to be in the company of Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., when they knew or should have known and foreseen that based on his propensities towards young girls that he was a danger and threat to the Minor-Plaintiff and was likely to cause her harm; n. failing to take any precautions whatsoever to give protection and safety to Minor-Plaintiff from the dangerous propensities of Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., of which they had notice and knowledge, actual or constructive; o. failing to warn Minor-Plaintiff that activity engaged in by Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., would be of a harmful nature to Minor-Plaintiff and have traumatic effects on her in the future; P. permitting Minor-Plaintiff to enter or remain on their property when they knew or should have known that while Minor-Plaintiff remained on the property she was at risk to be harmed by Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.; q. negligent supervision of the property; r. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 341 and 341A of the Restatement(Second)of Torts; S. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 448 of the Restatement(Second) of Torts; t. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to rescue Minor-Plaintiff after placing her in a perilous position; U. failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent further harm after rendering Minor-Plaintiff in danger of further harm; V. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to give aid or assistance to Minor-Plaintiff after rendering her in danger of further harm; W. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to prevent and delay in the appropriate care of Minor-Plaintiff, X. violation of duties set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 321. 23. As a direct and proximate cause of the conduct of Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr., and Kathleen Farrell, described herein, Minor-Plaintiff suffered serious physical and emotional injuries. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim of the Defendants,jointly and severally, damages in excess of the mandatory arbitration limits, in addition to other fees, costs, and interest as permitted by the law. COUNT II E.G.v. Scott Farrell,Jr. NEGLIGENCE 24. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length. 25. Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., owed Minor-Plaintiff a duty which required that he not physically molest or sexually assault her. 26. Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., mistakenly concluded the Minor-Plaintiff consented to sexual contact. 27. At all times relevant, Minor-Plaintiff did not consent to sexual contact with Scott Farrell,Jr. 28. A reasonable person in Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.'s position should have realized that Minor-Plaintiff, a twelve year old girl, did not consent to sexual touching. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs.claim of the Defendants,jointly and severally, damages in excess of the mandatory arbitration limits, in addition to other fees, costs, and interest as permitted by the law. Respectfully submitted, Date: 3�l l 3 By: Benjamin D. Andreozzi PA# 89271 Andreozzi &Associates,P.C. 215 Pine Street, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 p: 717.525.9142 f. 717.525.9143 Counsel for Plaintiffs � o VERIFICATION I, Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiffs E.G., J.G. and S.G., verify that the statements made in the foregoing Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: V ANDREOZZI &ASSOCIATES, P.C. B y �. Benjamin D. Andreozzi Attorney ID#89271 215 Pine St., Ste. 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 525-9124 Counsel for Petitioner j J F r A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Heather E. Verchick, Esquire, hereby state that I have this day caused to be served a true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint to all counsel of interest at the address below named,by U.S. Mail, First-Class, postage prepaid: Stephen J. Summers Summers, McDonnell,Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. 707 Grant Street Suite 2400 Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Dated: y.B J Heather E. Verchick, Esq Counsel for Plaintiffs PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) c.=. TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for theext== Argument Court.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- m . CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) -G r' cn �C E.G., a Minor, by J.G. and S.G., her Parents and Natural Guardians, <C-) ^r`s W vs. ' o -°� Scott Farrell, Sr., and Kathleen Farrell, 5Cctf FMTW-11,r. No. 1197 2013 Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esquire (Name and Address) 215 Pine Street, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (b) for defendants: Stephen J. Summers, Esquire (Name and Address) 707 Grant Street, Ste. 2400, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: g Aitu re Print your name Defendants Date: q123113 Attorney for INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2.The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument. 3.The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary)after the case is relisted. ED-CFFICi U 'ifs;- rrlNOI�O�A�t�t` Benjamin D.Andreozzi Attorney ID#89271 2 113141AY 3 PH 2: 17 Heather E.Verchick Attorney ID#201310 CUMBERLAND COUNTY ANDREOZZI&ASSOCIATES,P.C. PENNSYLVANIA 215 Pine St.,Ste.200 Harrisburg,PA 17101 717-525-9124 Ben @midstatelaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff E.G., a minor, by J.G. and S.G. her parents and natural guardians, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs vs. No. 13-1197 Civil SCOTT FARRELL, SR., et al. CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendants PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION OF THE AMENDED COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the attached Verifications for the one filed with Plaintiffs Amended Complaint on April 24, 2013. Date: (� / / Respectfully Submitted, 1 ( ANDREOZZI&ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Benjamin D. Andreozzi Attorney ID #89271 Heather E. Verchick Attorney ID #201310 215 Pine St., Ste. 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 525-9124 Counsel for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Heather E. Verchick, Esquire, hereby state that I have this day caused to be served a true and correct copy of the Praecipe to Substitute Verification of the Amended Complaint to all counsel of interest at the address below named, by U.S. Mail, First-Class,postage prepaid: Stephen J. Summers Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. 707 Grant Street Suite 2400 Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Dated: ' By: 4 /11 Heather E. Verchick, Esq Counsel for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Amended Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. i J.G. Date: (�/� 13 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Amended Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: �C� /2 S.G. C44 c�- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA E.G., a Minor, CIVIL DIVISION by J.G. and S.G. her Parents and Natural Guardian, NO.: 13-1197 Civil Plaintiffs, PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW PRAECIPE vs. FOR ARGUMENT SCOTT FARRELL, SR. and (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) KATHLEEN FARRELL, and SCOTT FARELL, JR., Filed on Behalf of Defendants, Defendants. Scott Farrell, Sr., Kathleen Farrell and Scott Farrell, Jr. Counsel of Record for this Party: Stephen J. Summers PA I.D. #40213 c� SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK!)D, GUTHRIE& SKEEL, P.C. � -' Firm #911 � 707 Grant Street -- ' Suite 2400, Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 261-3232 #19820 E.G., a minor,by J.G. and S.G., In the Court of Common Pleas of her Parents and Natural Guardians, Cumberland County,Pennsylvania No. 13-1197 Civil Term Praecipe to Withdraw Praecipe for vs Argument Scott Farrell,Sr.,and Kathleen Farrell, and Scott Farrell, Jr. PRAECIPE Kindly withdraw Defendant's Praecipe for listing case for argument which was filed to schedule Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint for Argument. The Plaintiff has filed an Amended Complaint which has made Defendant's Preliminary Objections moot pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(c)(1). David D. Buell, Prothonotary Al.-ty .1 20 ) 3 Attorney Info: AAW Stephen J.Summers,Esquire Attorney for Defendant Summers,McDonnell,Hudock,Guthrie&Skeel,P.C. 707 Gulf Tower,Suite 2400 Pittsburgh,PA 15219 (412)261-3232 �F CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Withdraw Praecipe for Argument has been served via first-class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this 2"d day of May 2013, addressed as follows: Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esquire ANDREOZZI &ASSOCIATES 215 Pine Street, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE &SKEEL, P.C. 4k4-- Step n J. Summers Counsel for Defendant D) , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA E.G., a Minor, CIVIL DIVISION !2,M by J.G. and S.G. her Parents and Natural Guardian, NO.: 13-1197 Civil Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARIt '{ "o *pry no vs. OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT SCOTT FARRELL, SR. and KATHLEEN FARRELL, and (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) SCOTT FARELL, JR., Defendants. Filed on Behalf of Defendants, Scott Farrell, Sr., Kathleen Farrell and Scott Farrell, Jr. Counsel of Record for this Party: Stephen J. Summers PA I.D. #40213 SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, P.C. Firm #911 707 Grant Street Suite 2400, Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 261-3232 #19820 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA E.G., a Minor, CIVIL DIVISION by J.G. and S.G. her Parents and Natural Guardian, NO.: 13-1197 Civil Plaintiffs, vs. SCOTT FARRELL, SR. and KATHLEEN FARRELL, and SCOTT FARRELL, JR., Defendants. DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants, Scott Farrell, Sr., Kathleen Farrell and Scott Farrell, Jr., by and through their attorneys, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. and Stephen J. Summers, II,- Esquire, and files the within Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. This action arises out of a series of incidents in which sixteen (16) year old Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. allegedly sexually assaulted twelve (12) year old Plaintiff E.G. 2. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges that Scott Farrell, Jr.'s parents, Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr., and Kathleen Farrell, were negligent in failing to warn Plaintiff E.G.'s parents about their son's alleged propensity to assault younger girls and in allowing the assault to occur at their home. (See generally Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, attached hereto and marked as Exhibit"A"). 3. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr., and Kathleen Farrell violated the following provisions of the Restatement (Second) of Torts: § 311—Negligent Misrepresentation Involving Risk of Physical Harm § 314A—Special Relations Giving Rise to Duty to Aid or Protect § 315—General Principle § 316—Duty of Parent to Control Conduct of Child § 318—Duty of Possessor of Land or Chattels to Control Conduct of Licensee § 319—Duty of Those in Charge of Person Having Dangerous Propensities § 320—Duty of Person Having Custody of Another to Control Conduct of Third Persons § 321—Duty to Act When Prior Conduct Is Found to Be Dangerous § 324A—Liability to Third Person for Negligent Performance of Undertaking § 341—Activities Dangerous to Licensees § 341A—Activities Dangerous to Invitees § 448—Intentionally Tortious or Criminal Acts Done Under Opportunity Afforded by Actor's Negligence Exhibit A, T 22. 4. The Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to support claims for violations of Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 319, 320 and 324A. 5. Section 319 provides: § 319 Duty of Those in Charge of Person Having Dangerous Propensities One who takes charge of a third person whom he knows or should know to be like'ly to cause bodily harm to others if not controlled is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to control the third person to prevent him from doing such harm. 6. Comment a to Section 319 states, "The rule stated in this Section applies to two situations. The first situation is one in which the actor has charge of one or more of a class of persons to whom the tendency to act injuriously is normal. The second situation is one in which the actor has charge of a third person who does not belong to such a class but who has a peculiar tendency so to act of which the actor from personal experience or otherwise knows or should know." 7. Pennsylvania case law applying Section 319 is limited to mental health providers, group homes, schools, youth centers and management companies, but not parents. See Emerich v. Philadelphia Ctr. for Human Dev., 724,A.2d 1032 (Pa. 1998); F.D.P. Ex Rel S.M.P. v. Ferrara, 804 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Super. 2004); Brisbine v. Outside in Sch. of Experiential Educ., Inc., 799 A.2d 89 (Pa. Super. 2002); Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 492 A.2d 786 (Pa. Commw. 1985); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Mahiai, 76 Pa. D. & C.4th 34 (Lancaster Co. 2005). Accordingly, this section is inapplicable to the instant case, especially in light of the fact that it is duplicative of the alleged violation of Section 316 regarding duties of parents to control their children. 8. Section 320 provides: § 320 Duty of Person Having Custody of Another to Control Conduct of Third Persons One who is required by law to take or who voluntarily takes the custody of another under circumstances such as to deprive the other of his normal power of self-protection or to subject him to association with persons likely to harm him, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control the conduct of third persons as to prevent them from intentionally harming the other or so conducting themselves as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to him, if the actor (a) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control the conduct of the third persons, and (b) knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control. 9. Comment a to Section 320 states, "The rule stated in this Section is applicable to a sheriff or peace officer, a jailer or warden of a penal institution, officials in charge of a state asylum or hospital for the criminally insane, or to teachers or other persons in charge of a public school. It is also applicable to persons conducting a private hospital or asylum, a private school, and to lessees of convict labor." 10. The only Pennsylvania case applying Section 320 is Ammlung v. Platt, 302 A.2d 491 (Pa. Super. 1973), which involved the alleged negligent care of prisoners. 11. Accordingly, this section does not contemplate "custody" in the content of a parent/child relationship and does not apply to this matter. 12. Section 324A provides: § 324A Liability to Third Person for Negligent Performance of Undertaking One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking. 13. Comment b to this section states, "This Section applies to any undertaking to render services to another, where the actor's negligent conduct in the manner of performance of his undertaking, or his failure to exercise reasonable care to complete it, or to protect the third person when he discontinues it, results in physical harm to the third person or his things. It applies both to undertakings for consideration, and to those .which are gratuitous." There are no allegations in the Amended Complaint that Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. or Kathleen Farrell formed any agreement to render services to the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, this allegation should be dismissed. WHEREFORE, Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr., Kathleen Farrell and Scott Farrell, Jr. respectfully request this Honorable Court strike paragraphs 220), 22(k) and 22(I) of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint in their entirety as the Plaintiffs have not stated claim under these sections of the Restatement (Second) of Torts for which relief can be granted. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE &SKEEL, P.C. Step J. Summers Counsel for Defendants r^t Ti A � CD Benjamin D.Andreozzi Attorney ID 989271 D C-), Heather E. Verchick Attorney ID#201310 A ANDREOZZI&ASSOCIATES,P.C. 215 Pine St.,Ste.200 Harrisburg,PA 17101 717-525-9124 Ben @midstatelaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff E.G., a minor, by J.G. and S.G. her parents and natural guardians, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs vs. No. 13-1197 Civil SCOTT FARRELL, SR., and CIVIL ACTION - LAW KATHLEEN FARRELL and SCOTT'FARRELL,JR. Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty(20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD E HIBIT THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFO NCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE D FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA, 17013 (717) 249-3166 Benjamin D.Andreozzi Attorney ID#89271 Heather E.Verchick Attorney ID#201310 ANDREOZZI&ASSOCIATES,P.C. 215 Pine St.,Ste.200 Harrisburg,PA 17101 717-525-9124 Ben @midstatelaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff E.G., a minor, by J.G. and S.G. her parents and natural guardians, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs VS. No. 13-1197 Civil SCOTT FARRELL, SR., and CIVIL ACTION - LAW KATHLEEN FARRELL and SCOTT FARRELL, JR. Defendants AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Plaintiffs,through their counsel, Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esq., and bring this Amended Complaint against the Defendants and aver the following: The Parties 1. Plaintiff, E.G. is a fourteen year old resident of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. J.G.. and S.G. are her adult parents and natural guardians. Initials are used to prevent public disclosure of her identity since this case involves child sexual abuse. 2. Defendant Scott Farrell, Sr. is an adult individual who resides at 5 Hilltop Circle, Carlisle, PA 17015. 3. Defendant Kathleen Farrell is an adult individual who resides at 5 Hilltop Circle, Carlisle,PA 17015. 4. Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., is an adult individual who at all times relevant resided at 5 Hilltop Circle, PA 17015, and to all belief and knowledge still resides at that address. The Abuse 5. As set forth in greater detail below,E.G. was sexually assaulted by Scott Farrell, Jr., ("Perpetrator")who is the eighteen year old son of Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. ("Perpetrator's father") and Kathleen Farrell ("Perpetrator's mother). 6. The Perpetrator met E.G. in late January or early February of 2011 when E.G. was only twelve years old and the Perpetrator was sixteen years old. 7. At all times relevant, E.G. and the Perpetrator lived in the same neighborhood. 8. In mid-April of 2011,E.G.'s mother mentioned to the Perpetrator's father that the Perpetrator was showing an intense interest in her daughter which she thought was out of the ordinary. 9. She also advised the Perpetrator's father that the relationship must stay a friendship because it would be "illegal" for it to advance beyond a friendship and that he should closely monitor the relationship. 10. The Perpetrator's father told E.G.'s mother she had nothing to worry about because the Perpetrator was a "good boy" and he merely acted young for his age and gravitated towards friendships with younger kids. 11. After this conversation, E.G.'s mother discovered information which led her to believe that the Perpetrator was romantically pursuing E.G. She called the Perpetrator's father and informed him of her discovery and instructed him the relationship needed to end and that the Perpetrator was not welcome at her house. 12. It is believed and therefore averred that in late March, or the first week of April 2011,the Perpetrators'parents became aware that the Perpetrator was being accused of sexually assaulting an eleven year old girl in an unrelated incident, and that the police were investigating the matter. 13. At no time did the Perpetrators'parents give any indication to E.G.'s parents or E.G. that the Perpetrator had been accused of sexually assaulting a young girl. 14. In fact, despite knowledge of the allegations of sexual abuse of another young girl, and concerned communications from E.G.'s mother,the Perpetrator's parents continued to allow E.G. and the Perpetrator to spend time together alone and unsupervised in their house. 15. On multiple occasions in the late spring and summer of 2011, the Perpetrator psychologically manipulated, exploited, groomed, and ultimately sexually assaulted E.G. in his parents'house, as well as other locations. At all times relevant hereto the Perpetrator was sixteen years old and E.G. was twelve years old. 16. Although the Perpetrator did not intend to cause harm to E.G.,his actions resulted in physical injuries, as well as severe emotional distress and psychological injuries. COUNT E.G.vs. Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell NEGLIGENCE 17. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length. 18. At all times relevant, Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell knew that Defendant Scott Farrell,.Jr.was accused of having prior inappropriate sexual contact with young girls,had prior inappropriate sexual contact with young girls,and exhibited behaviors which demonstrated that he should not be left alone with a twelve year old girl. 19. At all times relevant,Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell knew, permitted, encouraged, and facilitated Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.to have contact with Minor- Plaintiff, including but not limited to,unsupervised contact on their property. 20. As the parents of a sixteen year old boy,Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell had a special relationship with Defendant Scott Farrell,Jr., and they were generally responsible for raising him and setting rules and boundaries for his conduct, particularly within their home. 21. Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell owed a duty of reasonable care to Minor-Plaintiff as a result of their special relationship with Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. and as owners and possessors of their home,upon which Minor-Plaintiff was an invitee. 22. Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell were negligent, grossly negligent, and reckless as follows: a. failing to supervise or failing to adequately supervise Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. with whom they had a special relationship; b. failing to warn the Minor-Plaintiff or her parents of the risk of harm posed by Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.; C. permitting the harmful acts of Defendant Scott Farrell,Jr.to take place and/or continue; d. failing to make reasonably safe the property which they possessed and/or controlled; e. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 314A(3) & (4)of the Restatement(Second) of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell, were possessors of land who held it open to the public, including Minor-Plairitiff, and, as such owed a duty of reasonable protection to Minor=Plaintiff which they violated by failing to make safe the property or provide warnings to Minor-Plaintiff and/or Minor- Plaintiff s parents after having knowledge of the dangerous propensities and tendencies of Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.; f. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 311 of the Restatement(Second) of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell gave false information to J.G. and S.G. regarding the nature of their minor son's relationship with E.G., and J.G. and S.G. relied on this information and E.G. was harmed as a result of this reliance. g, violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 315(a) & (b) of the Restatement(Second)of Torts; h. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 316 of the Restatement(Second) of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell are the parents of Scott Farrell, Jr. and they were under a duty to exercise reasonable care so as to prevent their minor son from intentionally harming Minor-Plaintiff since they knew or had reason to know that they had the ability to control their minor son, and they knew or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control; i. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 318 of the Restatement (Second)of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell were possessors of land who permitted a third person, Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.,to conduct an activity on the land and failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent him from creating an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the Minor-Plaintiff when these defendants knew or should have known of their ability to control their minor son and knew of the need and opportunity to exercise control over him; j. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 319 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. and Kathleen Farrell had charge of Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr. and knew or should have known that he was likely to cause bodily harm to others, and specifically to Minor-Plaintiff, and did not exercise reasonable care to control their minor son from harming Minor-Plaintiff; k. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 320 of the Restatement(Second) of Torts because Defendants Scott Farrell Sr. and Kathleen Farrell voluntarily took custody of Minor-Plaintiff at their residence and subjected her to association with their minor son and knew or had reason to know that they had the ability to control the conduct of their minor son and knew or should have known the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control. 1. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 324A of the Restatement(Second) of Torts by having increased the risk of harm of injury to Plaintiff after having assumed the obligation to provide services to all Plaintiffs to care for and watch Minor-Plaintiff while she was at their residence,which was necessary for the protection of Minor-Plaintiff. M. allowing the Minor-Plaintiff to be in the company of Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.,when they knew or should have known and foreseen that based on his propensities towards young girls that he was a danger and threat to the Minor-Plaintiff and was likely to cause her harm; n. failing to take any precautions.whatsoever to give protection and safety to Minor-Plaintiff from the dangerous propensities of Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., of which they had notice and knowledge, actual or constructive; o. failing to warn Minor-Plaintiff that activity engaged in by Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.,would be of a harmful nature to Minor-Plaintiff and have traumatic effects on her in the future; p. permitting Minor-Plaintiff to enter or remain on their property when they knew or should have known that while Minor-Plaintiff remained on the property she was at risk to be harmed by Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.; q. negligent supervision of the property; r. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 341 and 341A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts;. S. violation of duties imposed under Pennsylvania law, Section 448 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts; t. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to rescue Minor-Plaintiff after placing her in a perilous position; U. failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent further harm after rendering Minor-Plaintiff in danger of further harm; V. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to give aid or assistance to Minor-Plaintiff after rendering her in danger of further harm; W. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to prevent and delay in the appropriate care of Minor-Plaintiff, X. violation of duties set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 321. 23. As a direct and proximate cause of the conduct of Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr., and Kathleen Farrell, described herein, Minor-Plaintiff suffered serious physical and emotional injuries. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim of the Defendants,jointly and severally, damages in excess of the mandatory arbitration limits, in addition to other fees, costs, and interest as permitted by the law. COUNT II E.G.v. Scott Farrell,Jr. NEGLIGENCE 24. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if set forth at length. 25. Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., owed Minor-Plaintiff a duty which required that he not physically molest or sexually assault her. 26. Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr., mistakenly concluded the Minor-Plaintiff consented to sexual contact. 27. At all times relevant, Minor-Plaintiff did not consent to sexual contact with Scott Farrell, Jr. 28. A reasonable person in Defendant Scott Farrell, Jr.'s position should have realized that Minor-Plaintiff, a twelve year old girl, did not consent to sexual touching. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim of the Defendants,jointly and severally, damages in excess of the mandatory arbitration limits, in addition to other fees, costs, and interest as permitted by the law. Respectfully submitted, Date: �/ 3 By: Benjamin D. Andreozzi PA# 89271 Andreozzi &Associates, P.C. 215 Pine Street, Suite 200 Harrisburg,PA 17101 p: 717.525.9142 f: 717.525.9143 Counsel for Plaintiffs VERIFICATION I, Benjamin D. Andreozzi,Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiffs E.G., J.G. and S.G., verify that the statements made in the foregoing Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: ANDREOZZI &ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Benjamin D. Andreozzi Attorney ID#89271 215 Pine St., Ste. 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 525-9124 Counsel for Petitioner CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Heather E. Verchick, Esquire, hereby state that I have this day caused to be served a true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint to all counsel of interest at the address below named,by U.S. Mail, First-Class,postage prepaid: Stephen J. Summers Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. 707 Grant Street Suite 2400 Gulf"Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Dated: By: Heather E. Verchick, Esq Counsel for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint have been served via first- class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, this 2nd day of May 2013, addressed as follows: Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esquire ANDREOZZI &ASSOCIATES 215 Pine Street, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 SUMMERS, WDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE&SKEEL, P.C. li Step J. Summers Counsel for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA E.G., a Minor, CIVIL DIVISION by J.G. and S.G. her Parents and Natural Guardian, NO.: 13-1197 Civil Plaintiffs, vs. SCOTT FARRELL, SR. and KATHLEEN FARRELL, and SCOTT FARRELL, JR., Defendants. PROPOSED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, to wit, this day of 2013, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint are granted. Paragraphs 220), 22(k) and 22(I) of the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint are stricken with prejudice in their entirety. BY THE COURT, J. PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the net ` . C. Argument Court.) 't7-r. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mal CAPTION OF CASE ;Q -0 (entire caption must be stated in full) tt �Ca T` --A cl, E.G., a Minor, by J.G. and S.G., her Parents and Natural Guardians, �. , a C) vs. r;a Scott Farrell, Sr., and Kathleen Farrell - 3 /-FN+) 5eoTT Fil-2 C I-L, (T,'-' . No 1197 2013 Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs'Amended Complaint 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esquire - (Name and Address) 215 Pine Street, Suite 200 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (b) for defendants: Stephen J. Summers, Esquire (Name and Address) 707 Grant Street, Ste. 2400, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: Signature Print your name Defendants Attorney for Date: / ��L�, 2,o� INSTRUCTIONS: 1.Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2.The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument. 3.The responding party Shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT1�.�5 PD ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary)after the case is relisted. C aaa4`f 8011'7 lLE O-t F ICE. Benjamin D.Andreozzi 00 THE- PROTHOWTARt . Attorney ID#89271 Heather E.Verchick 2013 KAY 22 PH ?: O9 Attorney.ID#201310 ANDREOZZI&ASSOCIATES,P.C. CUMBERLAND COUNTY 215 Pine St.,Ste.200 PENNSYLVANIA Harrisburg,PA 17101 717-525-9124 Ben @midstatelaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff E.G., a minor, by J.G. and S.G. her parents and natural guardians, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs VS. No. 13-1197 Civil SCOTT FARRELL, SR., and CIVIL ACTION - LAW KATHLEEN FARRELL and SCOTT FARRELL, JR. Defendants PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW comes the Plaintiffs E.G., a minor by J.G. and S.G. her parents and natural guardians, by and through their attorneys Andreozzi & Associates, P.C. and responds to Defendants'Preliminary Objections and avers as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. The allegations in Paragraph 4 contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are denied. By way of further response, Plaintiffs aver that they have alleged sufficient facts to support claims for violations of Restatement (Second) of Torts of§§319, 320 and 324A for the reasons set forth below. 5. The averments in Paragraph 5 cite to Restatement (Second) of Torts §319, which speaks for itself, and draws legal conclusions from that Restatement Section. Thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are denied. 6. The averments in Paragraph 6 cite to Comment a to Restatement (Second) of Torts §319, which speaks for itself,and draws legal conclusions from that Comment. Thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required,the averments are denied. 7. The averments in Paragraph 7 cite to Pennsylvania case law, which speaks for itself, and draws legal conclusions from that case law. Thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required,the averments are denied. By way of further response, none of the cases cited in Paragraph 7 have stated that Section 319 is only limited to mental health providers, group homes, schools,youth centers, and management companies. Rather, these cases examined the application of Section 319 in cases that happened to involve mental health providers, group homes, schools, youth centers or management companies. None of these cases examined .the possible application of Section 319 to a parent/child relationship. As such, Pennsylvania Courts have not held that Section 319 is inapplicable to a parent/child relationship. Moreover, Courts in other jurisdictions have applied Section 319 to a parent/child relationship in addition to Section 316. Robertson v. Wentz, 187 Cal. App. 3d 1281, 1288, 232 Cal Rptr. 634, 637 (Cal. App. Ct. 1 st Dist., 1986);Barrett v. Dollinger, 2012 Conn Super. LEXIS 2612 at 13-14 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2012). As such, the inquiry is merely whether Defendants Scott Farrell, Sr. . and Kathleen Farrell took charge of Scott Farrell, Jr., which Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged in their Amended Complaint. 8. The averments in Paragraph 8 cite to Restatement (Second) of Torts §320, which speaks for itself, and draws legal conclusions from that Restatement Section. Thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are denied. 9. The averments in Paragraph 9 cite to Comment a to Restatement (Second) of Torts §320, which speaks for itself, and draws legal conclusions from that Comment. Thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required,the averments are denied. 10. The averments in Paragraph 10 cite to Pennsylvania case law, which speaks for itself, and draws legal conclusions from that case law. Thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are denied. 11. Denied. It is specifically denied that Section 320 does not contemplate "custody" in the context of a parent/child relationship and would thus not apply to this matter. By way of further response, Comment a to Section 320 merely sets forth the types of parties who are required by law to take the custody of another under certain circumstances. However, Section 320 also refers to parties who voluntarily . take the custody of another under certain circumstances. See Clark v. Mincks, et al., 364 N.W.2d 226, 232 (Iowa Sup. Ct., 1985) ("the relationships in which one is 'required by law' to take custody of another involve 'a sheriff or peace officer, a jailer or warden of a penal institution, officials in charge of a state asylum or hospital for the criminally insane, or to teachers or other persons in charge of a public school. The duty is also applicable to persons conducting a private hospital or asylum, a private school, and to lessees of convict labor.' §320, Comment a. As Bogle does not fit into these kinds of relationships, plaintiffs are again required to contend that Bogle is in the situation of one who 'voluntarily takes custody of another."') Thus, a parent/child relationship could be contemplated as applying to a parent who voluntarily takes the custody of a child under certain circumstances. 12. The averments in Paragraph 12 cite to Restatement (Second) of Torts §324A, which speaks for itself, and draws legal conclusions from that Restatement Section. Thus, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are denied. 13. The averments in Paragraph 13 cite to Comment b to Restatement (Second) of Torts §324A, which speaks for itself, and draws legal conclusions from that Comment. Thus,no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the averments are denied. By way of further response, this Comment does not require that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants form an agreement to render services to the Plaintiffs. Rather, this section only requires that the Defendants gratuitously rendered services to the Plaintiffs which they should have recognized as necessary for the protection of the Plaintiff, E.G. Plaintiffs have specifically alleged that Defendants "assumed the obligation to provide services to all Plaintiffs to care for and watch Minor-Plaintiff while she was at their residence, which was necessary for the protection of Minor-Plaintiff." Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint at ¶22(1). This is sufficient to fall under Section 324A. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court deny and dismiss Defendants' Preliminary Objections and Order Defendants to file an Answer to the Complaint within twenty(20) days. Respectfully submitted,. Date: v " t By: Benjamin D. Andreozzi Attorney ID# 89271 Heather E. Verchick Attorney ID#201310 Andreozzi &Associates,P.C. 215 Pine Street, Suite 200 Harrisburg,PA 17101 p: 717.525.9142 f. 717.525.9143 Attorney for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Heather E. Verchick, Esquire, hereby state that I have this day caused to be served a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Preliminary Objections to all counsel of interest at the address below named, by both facsimile and U.S. Mail, First-Class, postage prepaid: Stephen J. Summers Summers, McDonnell,Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, P.C. 707 Grant Street Suite 2400 Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Dated: ��( �3 By: Heather E. Verchick, Esq Counsel for Plaintiffs E.G. a Minor, : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF by J.G. and S.G., : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Her Parents and Natural Guardians, PLAINTIFFS C V. ,n C/3 �y= r"T1 SCOTT FARRELL, SR., Go c KATHLEEN FARRELL and SCOTT FARRELL, JR. DEFENDANTS 13-1197 CIVIL TERM r f�� IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, P.J., MASLAND, J., AND PLACEY, J. OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., September 20, 2013:-- Before the court are the Preliminary Objections filed by Scott Farrell, Sr., Kathleen Farrell, and Scott Farrell, Jr. ("Defendants") to the Amended Complaint filed by E.G. and her parents and natural guardians, J.G. and S.G. ("Plaintiffs"). After briefing and argument by the parties, we now sustain Plaintiffs' preliminary objections in accordance with the following opinion. I. Background On April 24, 2013, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, averring numerous claims of negligence relating to a series of incidents where Defendant, then sixteen year-old Scott Farrell, Jr., allegedly sexually assaulted then twelve year-old Plaintiff, E.G, at the Defendants' residence. Plaintiffs made claims under twelve Restatement (Second) of Torts sections. Defendants then filed preliminary objections for legal insufficiency of the following Restatement sections: (1) Section 319 - Duty of Those in Charge of Persons Having Dangerous Propensities; (2) Section 320 - Duty of Persons 13-1197 CIVIL TERM Having Custody of Another to Control Conduct of Third Persons; (3) Section 324A— Liability to Third Person for Negligent Performance of Undertaking. Defendants request that these claims be stricken from the Amended Complaint with prejudice. II. Discussion A. Standard of Review Defendants' objections are in the nature of a demurrer, which challenges the claims' legal sufficiency. Lutz v. Springettsbury Twp., 667 A.2d 251, 253 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). In ruling on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from them are accepted as true. Id. However, legal conclusions and unjustified inferences are not deemed admitted. Id. A demurrer will be sustained only when the court is certain that no recovery may be had on the pleaded facts. Id. The court must resolve issues concerning preliminary objections solely on the basis of the pleadings; no testimony or other evidence outside of the complaint may be considered to dispose of the legal issues presented by the objection. Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Fabinyi, 650 A.2d 895, 899 (Pa. Super. 1994). With this standard in mind, we review Defendants' preliminary objections. B. Defendants' Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Claim for Violation of Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 319 - Duty of Those in Charge of Persons Having Dangerous Propensities Defendants object to the legal sufficiency of Section 319 on the basis that this section does not apply to parent-child relationships. Section 319 provides: "One who takes charge of a third person whom he knows or should know to be likely to cause bodily harm to others if not controlled is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to -2- 13-1197 CIVIL TERM control the third person to prevent him from doing such harm." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 319 (1965). Comment (a) to this section states: The rule stated in this section applies to two situations. The first situation is one in which the actor has charge of one or more of a class of persons to whom the tendency to act injuriously is normal. The second situation is one in which the actor has charge of a third person who does not belong to such a class but who has a peculiar tendency so to act of which the actor from personal experience or otherwise knows or should know. Id. Pennsylvania case law has limited the application of this section to mental health providers, group homes, schools, youth centers and management companies and has not expressly included parent-child relationships and the like. See Emerich v. Philadelphia Ctr. for Human Dev., 720 A.2d 1032 (Pa. 1998) (applying duty of those in charge of persons having dangerous propensities to healthcare providers); Brisbine v. Outside in Sch. Of Experiential Educ., Inc., 799 A.2d 89 (Pa. Super. 2002) (applying duty of those in charge of persons having dangerous propensities to schools and youth centers). California is the only state to apply the duty of those in charge of persons having dangerous propensities to a parent-child relationship. See Robertson v. Wentz, 187 Cal. App. 3d 1281, 1288 (Cal. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1986). Therefore, there is no legal authority binding this Court to the application of Section 319 to a parent-child relationship and we decline to now create such law. Additionally, Plaintiffs have not alleged that any of the applicable relationships under this Section exist in their case. Accordingly, we conclude that Plaintiffs' claim that Defendants' violated Section 319 is insufficient and Defendants' first preliminary objection is sustained. -3- 13-1197 CIVIL TERM C. Defendants' Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Claim for Violation of Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 320 - Duty of Persons to Control Conduct of Third Persons As with Section 319, Defendants object to the legal sufficiency of Section 320 on the basis that this section does not apply to parent-child relationships. Section 320 provides: One who is required by law to take or who voluntarily takes the custody of another under circumstances such as to deprive the other of his normal power of self-protection or to subject him to association with persons likely to harm him, is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to control the conduct of third persons as to prevent them from intentionally harming the other or so conducting themselves as to create and unreasonable risk of harm to him, if the actor: (a) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control the conduct of the third persons, and (b) knows or should know of necessity and opportunity for exercising such control. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 320 (1965). Furthermore, comment (a) to this section makes the rule applicable to "a sheriff or peace officer, a jailer or warden of a penal institution, officials in charge of a state asylum or hospital for the criminally insane, or to teachers or other persons in charge of a public school. It is also applicable to persons conducting a private hospital or asylum, a private school, and to lessees of convict labor." Id. No Pennsylvania case law applies Section 320 to a parent-child relationship. The only case from Pennsylvania courts related to this section involves an interaction with a police officer. Ammlung v. Platt, 302 A.2d 491 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1973). In the absence of case law applying this section to a parent-child relationship and the absence of a parent-child relationship in the comment, we decline to extend the duty of persons to -4- 13-1197 CIVIL TERM control conduct of third persons to a parent-child relationship. Similarly to Plaintiffs claim for Section 319, Plaintiffs do not allege any applicable relationship exists in their case to hold Defendants liable for violating this duty. Additionally, because Section 316, Duty of Parents to Control Conduct of Child, does apply to a parent-child relationship, holding Section 320 to the same standard would be duplicative. Accordingly, we conclude that Plaintiffs' claim that Defendants' violated Section 320 is insufficient and Defendants' second preliminary objection is sustained. D. Defendants' Preliminary Objection to Plaintiffs' Claim for Violation of Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 324A - Liability to Third Persons for Negligent Performance of Undertaking Defendants object to Section 324A claiming Plaintiffs have not alleged that Defendants agreed to render any services to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs counter that negligent performance of an undertaking is applicable where Defendants gratuitously render services. This section states: One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of a third person or his things, is subject to liability to the third person for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to protect his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise reasonable care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) he has undertaken to perform a duty owed by the other to the third person, or (c) the harm is suffered because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A (1965). Comment (b) to this section further provides, "[t]his Section applies to any undertaking to render services to another, where -5- 13-1197 CIVIL TERM the actor's negligent conduct in the manner of performance of his undertaking, or his failure to exercise reasonable care to complete it or to protect the third person when he discontinues it, results in physical harm to the third person or his things. It applies both to undertakings for consideration, and to those which are gratuitous." Id. Although gratuitous services are incorporated into this Section, Pennsylvania case law only addresses liability to third persons for negligent performance of undertaking in business relationships or relationships that involve rendering of services for many years. See Emerich v. Philadelphia Ctr. for Human Dev., Inc., 720 A.2d 1032, 1041 (Pa. 1998) (applying a similar duty to health care providers); Casse/bury v. Am. Food Serv., 30 A.3d 510, 516 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) (applying liability to third persons for negligent performance of undertaking to a food service company); Troxel V. A.I. Dupont Inst., 675 A.2d 314, 316 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996) (applying liability to third persons for negligent performance of undertaking to a doctor); Beury v. Hicks, 323 A.2d 788, 789 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974) (applying liability to third persons for negligent performance of undertaking to a person providing tree maintenance for twenty-four years). In the instant case, no business relationship exists between Defendants and Plaintiffs. Additionally, there has been no long-term undertaking by Defendants to render services nor has there been any economic transfer or contractual relationship between Plaintiffs and Defendants. Therefore, we find that Section 324A does not apply to the relationship in this case and sustain Defendants' third preliminary objection. III. Conclusion For the above stated reasons, Defendants' preliminary objections are sustained and the claims relating to Sections 319, 320, and 324A are stricken from Plaintiffs' -6- 13-1197 CIVIL TERM Amended Complaint with prejudice. Defendants are directed to file an Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to the remaining claims within twenty (20) days of the entry of this opinion and order. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of September 2013, the Preliminary Objections filed by Defendants are SUSTAINED with prejudice. Defendants are directed to file an Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to the remaining claims within twenty (20) days of the entry of this opinion and order. By the Court, Albert�Wh. asland, J. ✓ Stephen J. Summers, Esquire Fo- Plaintiffs Benjamin D. Andreozzi, Esquire For Defendants .L (2n 1*6S 17&ICL -7-