## Facts

- Drew R. Kleinknecht, a 20-year-old Gettysburg College sophomore, was affirmatively recruited to play intercollegiate lacrosse.
- During a fall, out-of-season lacrosse practice supervised by college coaches, he collapsed from sudden cardiac arrest and later died.
- No certified athletic trainers were present at the practice field when he collapsed.
- The estate alleged failures in emergency preparedness, including lack of a written emergency plan, lack of CPR-certified personnel at practice, and lack of communication devices to summon help quickly.
- The college sought summary judgment; the district court granted it, concluding the college had no duty to anticipate a fatal arrhythmia in a healthy athlete and that the post-collapse response was reasonable as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Pennsylvania negligence law, a college owes a duty to a recruited intercollegiate athlete to take reasonable measures to ensure prompt emergency medical assistance during college-sponsored practices.
2. Whether disputed facts about emergency planning and the post-collapse response precluded summary judgment on breach and causation.
3. Whether Pennsylvania’s Good Samaritan Act justified summary judgment by immunizing the college (or otherwise eliminating potential liability).

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed summary judgment and remanded.
- The court held the college owed a duty of reasonable care to provide prompt emergency medical services for a recruited intercollegiate athlete during a college-sponsored practice.
- The court held genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether the college breached that duty through inadequate planning and delayed or inadequate response, requiring jury resolution.
- The court rejected Good Samaritan immunity as a basis for summary judgment because the statute did not immunize the college as a corporate entity and did not eliminate potential vicarious liability.

## Legal Principles

- In Pennsylvania negligence law, the existence of a duty is a question of law; breach and causation commonly present jury questions when material facts are disputed.
- A college’s affirmative recruitment of a student for intercollegiate athletics can create a special relationship supporting a duty to exercise reasonable care for the athlete’s safety during the recruited-for activity.
- Foreseeability for duty purposes does not require predicting the precise medical mechanism of injury; it is enough that serious, life-threatening harm is reasonably foreseeable in intercollegiate athletics.
- The duty recognized is to take reasonable emergency medical precautions under the circumstances (e.g., planning, trained responders, and rapid communication), not to provide any specific medical resource as a matter of law.
- Pennsylvania’s Good Samaritan Act provides limited protection to certain individuals rendering emergency aid, but it does not automatically shield an institution from direct or vicarious liability.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that a college that affirmatively recruits an intercollegiate athlete has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to secure prompt emergency medical assistance during college-sponsored athletic practices, and that disputed facts about preparedness and response required a jury determination rather than summary judgment.


Kleinknecht v. Gettysburg Coll., 989 F.2d 1360 (3d Cir. 1993)