## 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

1. 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.
2. 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.


C.R. v. American Institute for Foreign Study, Inc., No. SA-12-CA-1046-XR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130348, 2013 WL 5157699 (2013)