Facts
- American Institute for Foreign Study, Inc., doing business as Camp America (Camp America), recruited foreign nationals to work as counselors at U.S. summer camps.
- Camp America screened applicants and handled administrative services, including criminal background checks, visa and travel arrangements, and medical insurance.
- Camp America also retained some ability to control a foreign participant if a placement at a camp did not work out.
- Individual camps, including Camp Stewart for Boys (Camp Stewart) in Texas, contracted with Camp America to obtain referrals of foreign counselors.
- Camp Stewart paid a premium for Camp America’s services and relied on Camp America to vet candidates, including checking references.
- In summer 2009, C.R., age eight, attended Camp Stewart.
- Camp America referred Scott Zirus to Camp Stewart as a counselor, and C.R. was assigned to a cabin with Zirus.
- C.R. alleged Zirus sexually molested him during the camp session.
- Zirus later received a 40-year prison sentence for molesting two other boys at the same camp during summer 2009.
- C.R. sued Camp America for negligence, alleging Camp America failed to check Zirus’s references, verify his employment history, and perform an internet search that would have revealed warning signs.
- Camp America moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no legal duty to C.R. because Camp America’s contract was with Camp Stewart and did not cover third parties like campers.
Issues
- Whether, under Texas negligence law, a counselor-placement and screening company can owe a duty of reasonable care to a child camper harmed by a counselor it screened and referred to the camp.
- Whether the absence of contractual coverage for third parties (campers) defeats a common-law negligence duty when the defendant undertook screening and referral services for positions involving supervision of children.
Decision
- The court denied Camp America’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held Camp America was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on its “no duty” argument, because a duty could arise from Camp America’s screening and referral undertaking in a context involving child safety.
- The court left disputed questions concerning breach, causation, and damages for later proceedings.
Legal Principles
- Under Texas law, the existence of a negligence duty is a question of law informed by factors including foreseeability of harm and the relationship between the defendant’s conduct and the risk.
- A party that undertakes to provide services to another may owe a duty to exercise reasonable care when the services are of a kind that are meant to reduce risk of harm to third persons (assumed-duty/undertaking doctrine, commonly associated with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A).
- A defendant’s contract with one entity does not, by itself, bar a negligence duty to foreseeable third parties when the defendant’s conduct concerns screening or selection for roles involving supervision of children.
- At the summary-judgment stage, when the record supports a legally recognized basis for a duty tied to the defendant’s undertaking and the foreseeability of harm, the court may deny a “no duty” motion and allow the negligence claim to proceed.
Conclusion
The court denied summary judgment because, in a setting where a company undertook to screen and refer counselors for a children’s summer camp and the camp paid for and relied on that screening, Texas law could recognize a duty of reasonable care running to foreseeable child campers harmed by an allegedly unfit counselor.