PA Commonwealth Court rules in favor of Krista Rogers, Lycoming County Controller

Photo from 2021: Lycoming Commissioners Rick Mirabito, Scott Metzger, Tony Mussare,

Administrative Manager Lycoming County Commissioners, Eileen Ebner and

Lycoming County Controller, Krista Rogers.

By Todd Bartley, TalkWilliamsport.com

News@TalkWilliamsport.com

On Friday the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued a MEMORANDUM OPINION in the Rogers versus Lycoming County Board of Commissioners lawsuit that stems from the Commissioners unilateral move of employees in the office of the Lycoming County Controller to a different department.

Lycoming County Controller, Krista Rogers was awarded declaratory relief on her Complaint.

Derek A. Keightly, Esquire of the law firm Rudolph Clarke, LLC has been representing Rogers in the litigation and offered the following statement in light of the Commonwealth Court finding for his client;

“We are very pleased with today’s ruling by the en banc Commonwealth Court. Now that these issues have been definitively addressed by the appeals court, Controller Rogers looks forward to Lycoming County’s return to a structure of fiscal affairs which aligns with the intent of the Pennsylvania Legislature. As has always been Controller Rogers’ goal with this litigation, the taxpayers of Lycoming County will now benefit from proper financial oversight of all tax dollars expended by the County.”

 

The MEMORANDUM OPINION excoriates the Lycoming County Board of Commissioners including current Commissioner Scott Metzger plus former Commissioners Tony Mussare and Rick Mirabito.

From the PA Commonweath Court MEMORANDUM OPINION authored BY JUDGE WOJCIK and FILED: January 26, 2024.

“The Lycoming County (County) Board of Commissioners, and Commissioners Tony Mussare, Scott Metzger, and Rick Mirabito (collectively, Commissioners) appeal the order of the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) denying their motions for post-trial relief and entering judgment in favor of Krista Rogers (Controller) on her Complaint seeking declaratory relief. We affirm.”

“In short, the Commissioners’ claims in this regard are without merit and do not compel reversal of the trial court’s order in this case.”

Section IV

“However, the Commissioners overlook that the Controller

is as much a constitutional county officer as are they.”

See article IX, section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Pa. Const. art. IX, §4 (“County officers shall consist of commissioners, controllers or auditors, district attorneys, public defenders, treasurers, sheriffs, registers of wills, recorders of deeds, prothonotaries, clerks of the courts, and such others as may from time to time be provided by law.”) (emphasis added).

As recounted above, Sections 1702, 1705, 1750, and 1751 of The County Code confer specific powers upon the Controller that cannot be impaired or contravened by the general supervisory authority conferred upon the Commissioners by Section 1701.

Any other construction of The County Code would be as exhaustively outlined above, the trial court properly analyzed the provisions of The County Code outlining the respective roles of the Commissioners and the Controller with respect to the Commissioners’ removal of the payroll, accounts payable, and general ledger functions and employees from the Controller’s Office to the Finance Office.

Thus, contrary to the Commissioners’ assertions, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting the requested declaratory relief based on the Commissioners’ improper and unauthorized actions in this regard.

12 Moreover, under Section 1933 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972,13 it is a well-established rule of statutory construction that where a general statutory provision is in conflict with a special provision, the special provision controls as an exception to the general.

“As exhaustively outlined above, the trial court properly analyzed the provisions of The County Code outlining the respective roles of the Commissioners and the Controller with respect to the Commissioners’ removal of the payroll, accounts payable, and general ledger functions and employees from the Controller’s Office to the Finance Office.

Thus, contrary to the Commissioners’ assertions, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting the requested declaratory relief based on the Commissioners’ improper and unauthorized actions in this regard.”

 

Section V

“Herein, although there are disputed facts relating to whether the Controller can perform her required duties under The County Code, the thrust of the Commissioners’ argument is based on their misapplication of the various grants of authority under The County Code.”

The Lycoming County Board of Commissioners issued a press release after their seventh loss in this matter.

“This case was started by the Controller. The Controller opted to litigate how the payroll, accounts payable, and the general ledger functions has been done in the County for decades. A prior Board of Commissioners allowed her these functions previously and it did not function to its satisfaction. The Controller filed the case after the Board of Commissioners returned these functions to how they had been done previously.

The case involved interpretation of the County Code. The County’s position was that there was more than one way to perform these functions, while respecting the Controller’s responsibilities and the Commissioners’ role over the fiscal affairs of the County. The Commonwealth Court’s decision interpreted the County Code differently. This Board of Commissioners will review the decision and consider its options and decide how to move forward in the best interest of the residents and taxpayers of Lycoming County.”

Historical background of the litigation from the MEMORANDUM OPINION:
  • Case initiated on December 10, 2021, by Krista Rogers former solicitor Mark Flaherty, who sadly passed away shortly thereafter.
  • Attorneys for Rudolph Clarke, LLC entered their appearances for Krista in January 2022.
  • July 5, 2022, trial court enters judgment on the pleadings in favor of the Controller (Rogers)
    • Shortly thereafter, the Commissioners filed a motion for post-trial relief, and the Court vacated the July 5, 2022 judgment in order to allow an evidentiary hearing as requested by the Commissioners.
    • Evidentiary hearing occurred September 22, 2022.
  • December 1, 2022, the trial court again ruled in favor of the Controller
    • Commissioners again filed a motion for post-trial relief
    • Argument on that motion occurred January 10, 2023.
  • January 25, 2023, the trial court denied the Commissioners’ post-trial motion
    • Commissioners then appealed to Commonwealth Court
  • January 26, 2024, Commonwealth Court affirms trial court ruling, finding in favor of the Controller (Rogers)
This is a developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

Darrick Dixon and Jim Webb named as Defendants in case filed by local journalist

Darrick Dixon (left) and Jim Webb (right) are named as Defendants

in a civil lawsuit filed by local journalist

STAFF REPORTS

TALKWILLIAMSPORT.COM

Recently, a “A Writ of Summons” was served upon local publisher Jim Webb as well as his business associate Darrick Dixon.

A Writ of Summons is a legal document that notifies a person that a lawsuit has been initiated against them.

It is an alternative form of original process in Pennsylvania that allows a plaintiff to start a lawsuit without filing a complaint. A person who receives a Writ of Summons must appear in court or respond to the plaintiff within a specified time period.

Dixon is the former Williamsport High School girls basketball coach who was previously convicted in Lycoming County Common Pleas Court of having a sexual relationship with one of his then 14 year old players. He served 20 months in jail and was not required to be put on the Megan’s law sex offender registry. The case was adjudicated by current Lycoming County Common Pleas Court President Judge Nancy Butts.

According to the Pocono Record at the time the case was going on in 2002;

“The victim, now 15, testified at Wednesday’s preliminary hearing that she and a friend met Dixon on a secluded road. Dixon first searched the girls for wiretaps, then paid the second girl $20 to leave so that he and the victim could be alone, she said. The girl said they had consensual sex.

The other teen then testified that she and Dixon exchanged Internet messages in which Dixon urged her to lie about the meeting. Dixon allegedly paid the girl again, leaving $40 in a secluded spot. The girl took pictures of Dixon leaving the money and turned the cash over to school officials, who notified the police.”

Webb is the publisher of Webb Weekly.

The current lawsuit centers around the pattern of behavior involving a “synthetic online profile” used to threaten, harass and intimidate the local journalist, his wife and children.

One such threat from the synthetic online profile, “if he dies, you die.”

The “he” referenced is Dixon, and the “you” referenced is the local journalist.

A more formal complaint will be filed in the near future providing additional details of the alleged behaviors engaged in by the Defendants.

This is a developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

WASD and Lycoming County lose “Motion to Dismiss” round in Federal case brought by JOHN DOE #1

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Williamsport Area School District

and Lycoming County’s Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint

(Docs. 74 and 75) are DENIED as moot.”

 

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the eighteenth in a series based upon the developments which now include the recent Second Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

In response to the First Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiff on Thursday, May 11, 2023; Attorneys for Defendants Williamsport Area School District and Lycoming County filed “Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint”.

Plaintiff’s attorneys in turn prepared and timely filed a Second Amended Complaint providing according the ORDER from Judge Brann;

“providing the blueprint for the future course of the lawsuit.”

 

On background, this past week New Mexico State University settled a similar lawsuit with several former men’s basketball players who claimed to be victims of hazing and sexual assaults by teammates.

In the NMSU case, there has been no published reporting of any of the hazing or sexual assaults being captured on video or shared to social media unlike the 2018 WAHS/Myrtle Beach baseball case referenced in this story.

From the NBCSports.com article on the NMSU settlement; “Deuce Benjamin and his father, William, who was a co-defendant, will receive $4.125 million, while the other plaintiff, Shak Odunewu, will receive $3.875 million, according to the terms on the state’s open-records website.

Benjamin’s attorney told The Associated Press the settlement was made in part to keep the players from having to relive their experience over what could have been a years-long legal process.

“To New Mexico State’s credit, they took the lawsuit very seriously,” Joleen Youngers said. “They obviously recognized that our clients had been harmed.”

 

The unredacted ORDER of Denial Time Extension issued by Chief United States District Judge Matthew Brann on June 27, 2023, is listed below.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JOHN DOE, Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAMSPORT AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, LYCOMING COUNTY, and JOHN and JANE

DOEs #1-#20 (fictitious names), whose true identities are currently unknown to Plaintiffs,

Defendants.

No. 4:22-CV-01387

(Chief Judge Brann)

 

ORDER

JUNE 27, 2023

AND NOW, upon consideration of Defendants Williamsport Area School District and Lycoming County’s Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Docs. 74 and 75) and Plaintiff having subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 92), and the Court noting that an amended pleading supersedes the original “in providing the blueprint for the future course of the lawsuit,” Snyder v. Pascack Valley Hosp., 303 F.3d 271, 276 (3d Cir. 2002); see also 6 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 1476 (3d ed. 2015), and the Court thus finding that the amended complaint renders the original complaint a nullity.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Williamsport Area School District and Lycoming County’s Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Docs. 74 and 75) are DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (Doc. 88) and Plaintiff’s Motion to exceed page limitation (Doc. 89) are DENIED as moot.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
Chief United States District Judge

 

Multiple stories on the full Second Amended Complaint filed by JOHN DOE #1 will be forthcoming.

This is a developing story on Talkwilliamsport.com.

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “State Law Claims COUNT XI – CIVIL CONSPIRACY Plaintiff v. All Defendants”

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

State Law Claims

COUNT XI – CIVIL CONSPIRACY

Plaintiff v. All Defendants

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the seventeenth a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

231. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

232. As outlined above and upon information and belief, Defendants WASD, LC, and their respective employees, agents, staff, administrators, directors, teachers, coaches all knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves to misrepresent to and conceal from the public, including, but not limited to Plaintiff and his family, information relating to his and other students’ sexual abuse and/or their investigation of and response to such abuse and/or their intent regarding consequences to be faced by B.M. and others who they knew participated in the abuse of Plaintiff and other students. This conspiracy continues to this day as all Defendants have claimed privately and publicly that their investigation of and response to Plaintiff’s abuse was prompt, appropriate, and thorough.

233. The Defendants conspired to keep the abuse of Plaintiff and other WAHS students from the public, as well as appropriate law enforcement authorities. Instead of informing the public, Plaintiff, and/or appropriate law enforcement authorities about such instances of abuse, Defendants intentionally and falsely told Plaintiff, the public, and appropriate law enforcement authorities that what occurred was merely “indecent” and/or “inappropriate” rather than criminal sexual behavior.

234. Further, the Defendants likewise conspired to keep their investigation of and response to the abuse of Plaintiff hidden from the public and appropriate law enforcement authorities. Defendants conspired to: destroy evidence; silence witnesses; make back-room deals to protect perpetrators of abuse rather than Plaintiff, the innocent victim of a sexual assault; discriminate against Plaintiff by seriously vetting and investigating the allegations of a similarly situated white victim of abuse; falsify records and/or fabricate information contained in official law enforcement documents; and other activities described throughout this Complaint in an effort to minimize the seriousness of Plaintiff’s abuse and any corresponding embarrassment or reputational harm Defendants would face as a result of the abuse. Instead of informing the public, Plaintiff, and/or appropriate law enforcement authorities about such instances of abuse, Defendants intentionally and falsely told Plaintiff, the public, and appropriate law enforcement authorities, among other things, that Defendants first learned of the abuse via local law enforcement, that the matter was investigated by outside agencies including the LC DA’s Office, that the individuals
conducting the investigation were not biased, that Defendants had communicated with families of all students involved, and that the conduct of B.M. and other students towards Plaintiff was not condoned.

235. In furtherance of said conspiracy and agreement, Defendants engaged in fraudulent representations, omissions and/or concealment of facts, acts of cover-up and statements. Defendants were purely motivated in this regard for the purposes of protecting their own interests at the expense of innocent children, including Plaintiff.

236. All of the actions of Defendants set forth in the preceding paragraphs were in violation of the rights of Plaintiff and committed in furtherance of the aforementioned conspiracies and agreements. Moreover, each of the aforementioned individuals lent aid and encouragement, and knowingly financed, ratified and/or adopted the acts of the other. As a proximate result of the wrongful acts herein alleged, Plaintiff has suffered significant damage as outlined above.

237. These acts constituted malicious conduct which was carried on the Defendants with willful and conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights with the intention of willfully concealing incidents of abuse and harassment, and was despicable conduct by any measure that subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages. Accordingly, punitive damages should be awarded against Defendants to punish them and deter other such persons from committing such wrongful and malicious acts in the future.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD, LC, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum more than Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

Dated: ____5/10/23____

LAFFEY, BUCCI & KENT, LLP
BY:
Brian D. Kent, Esq., Gaetano D’Andrea, Esq., Michael J. McFarland, Esq., Jillian P. Roth, Esq.
LAFFEY, BUCCI & KENT, LLP
1100 Ludlow Street, Suite 300
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(T): REDACTED BY AUTHOR
(E): REDACTED BY AUTHOR

STAPP LAW, LLC
BY: /s/ Gregory A. Stapp
Gregory A. Stapp, Esq.
STAPP LAW, LLC
153 West 4th Street, Suite 6
Williamsport, PA 17701
(T): REDACTED BY AUTHOR
(E): REDACTED BY AUTHOR
Attorneys for Plaintiff

This is a developing story on Talkwilliamsport.com.

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “State Law Claims COUNT X – NEGLIGENCE PER SE Plaintiff v. All Defendants”

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

State Law Claims

COUNT X – NEGLIGENCE PER SE

Plaintiff v. All Defendants

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the sixteenth a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

223. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

224. Defendants, individually, derivatively, and in concert with each other, engaged in the aforementioned conduct, which would constitute violations of Pennsylvania criminal statutes prohibiting Unsworn Falsification (18 Pa.C.S. § 4904), and/or Tampering with Evidence (18 Pa.C.S. § 4910), and/or Intimidation of Witnesses (18 Pa.C.S. § 4952), and/or Obstructing Administration of Law (18 Pa.C.S. § 5101), and/or Official Oppression (18 Pa.C.S. § 5301).

225. Defendants, individually, derivatively, and in concert with each other, engaged in the aforementioned conduct, which would constitute violations of 23 Pa.C.S. § 6311 and the Educator Discipline Act, 24 P.S. § 2070.1 et seq.

226. Defendants’ violations constitute negligence per se under Pennsylvania law.

227. Defendants’ negligent, reckless, and/or intentional failures to report criminal acts allowed the dissemination of videos of Plaintiff’s abuse, which enabled others at WAHS and in the Williamsport community to view said videos, causing Plaintiff to be subject to ridicule, harassment, and bullying and the other injuries and damages described herein, as a result.

228. Defendants’ negligent, reckless, and/or intentional failures in investigating or responding to Plaintiff’s allegations of abuse caused Plaintiff the injuries and damages described above.

229. Such failure on part of Defendants was reckless, intentional, knowing, grossly negligent, deliberately and recklessly indifferent, outrageous, malicious, and/or was a reckless and conscious disregard for the safety of Plaintiff.

230. Defendants’ failures to report pursuant to their legal obligation under either Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law (PCPSL), 23 § 6311(a) and (b) et seq. and/or the Educator Discipline Act, 24 P.S. §§ 2070.1 et seq. as well as the conduct which would violate the criminal laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proximately caused the harm to Plaintiff and the injuries and damages described above.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD, LC, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum more than Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT XI – CIVIL CONSPIRACY, Plaintiff v. All Defendants” in this series, is forthcoming.

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “COUNT IX – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO RESCUE, Plaintiff v. All Defendants”

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

State Law Claims

COUNT IX – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO RESCUE

Plaintiff v. All Defendants

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the fifteenth a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

219. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

220. The negligence and recklessness of Defendants in directly and proximately causing the injuries and damages to Plaintiff described herein, include:
a. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to rescue the Plaintiff after placing him in a position of harm;
b. failing to exercise reasonable and necessary steps to prevent further harm after rendering Plaintiff in danger of further harm;
c. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to give aid or assistance to Plaintiff after rendering him in danger of further harm;
d. failing to take reasonable steps to obtain aid or assistance for the Plaintiff after rendering him danger of further harm;
e. failing to take reasonable and necessary steps to prevent the delay in the appropriate care of Plaintiff; and
f. violation of the duties set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts, Sections 314A & 322, as adopted in Pennsylvania.

221. As a proximate and direct result of Defendant’s breaches described in the preceding paragraph, Plaintiff sustained psychological and physical harms and injuries as described above.

222. The aforementioned incidents resulted from the negligence, recklessness and/or intentional acts of Defendants and was due in no manner whatsoever to any act or failure to act on part of Plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD, LC, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT X – NEGLIGENCE PER SE, Plaintiff v. All Defendant” in this series, is forthcoming.

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “State Law Claims COUNT VIII INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Plaintiff v. Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber and John Does 1-20”

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

State Law Claims

COUNT VIII

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Plaintiff v. Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber and John Does 1-20

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the thirteenth a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

214. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

215. Defendants, individually, derivatively, and in concert with each other, engaged in the aforementioned conduct, which would constitute violations of Pennsylvania criminal statutes prohibiting Unsworn Falsification (18 Pa.C.S. § 4904), and/or Tampering with Evidence (18 Pa.C.S. § 4910), and/or Intimidation of Witnesses (18 Pa.C.S. § 4952), and/or Obstructing Administration of Law (18 Pa.C.S. § 5101), and/or Official Oppression (18 Pa.C.S. § 5301).

216. Defendants, by and through their contact with Plaintiff, as described above, committed intentional and willful misconduct in their handling of Plaintiff’s abuse allegations.

217. Defendants, by and through their contact with Plaintiff, as described above, acted with actual malice towards Plaintiff in their handling of Plaintiff’s abuse allegations.

218. Defendants by and through their contact with Plaintiff, as described above, intentionally committed multiple acts of extreme and outrageous conduct which caused severe emotional, psychological, and psychiatric injuries, distress, and harm to Plaintiff, which also manifested in physical injuries to Plaintiff as set forth above, in an extreme, outrageous and
harmful manner.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT IX – NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO RESCUE, Plaintiff v. All Defendants” in this series, is forthcoming.

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “COUNT VII NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS Plaintiff v. All Defendants″

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

State Law Claims

COUNT VII

NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Plaintiff v. All Defendants

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the twelfth a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

212. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

213. Defendants by and through their contact with Plaintiff, as described above, negligently and/or recklessly committed multiple acts of extreme and outrageous conduct which caused severe emotional, psychological, and psychiatric injuries, distress, and harm to Plaintiff, which also manifested in physical injuries to Plaintiff as set forth above in an extreme, outrageous, and harmful manner.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD, LC, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT VIII – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, Plaintiff v. Defendants Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, Weber and John Does 1-20” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “State Law Claims COUNT VI NEGLIGENCE Plaintiff v. LC, Weber, and John Does 1-20″

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

State Law Claims

COUNT VI

NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff v. LC, Weber, and John Does 1-20

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the eleventh a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

198. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

199. At all relevant times, Defendant Weber was assigned to the LC DA’s Office as an agent, employee, servant, and/or staff member of LC.

200. At all relevant times, Defendant Weber, as a law enforcement agent of LC, was a mandated reporter pursuant to 63 Pa.C.S. § 6311, et seq.

201. At all relevant times, Defendants LC and Weber owed a duty to investigate reports of criminal activity, including sexual abuse, and, specifically, the sexual abuse of Plaintiff

202. Defendant LC knew, had reason to know, or were otherwise on notice of the conduct of Weber, who failed to investigate and/or refer for investigation reports of child sexual abuse, including Plaintiff. Yet Defendant LC failed to take reasonable steps and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to prevent Weber from dereliction of his duties as a law enforcement officer tasked with reporting and investigating allegations of child sexual abuse.

203. Furthermore, at no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendant LC have in place a system or procedure to supervise and/or monitor its employees, agents, and/or staff to ensure allegations of child sexual abuse were reported and investigated.

204. Moreover, as set forth above, the abuse of Plaintiff was purposefully shielded from the appropriate authorities. For years, Defendant LC failed to do anything to properly investigate Plaintiff’s abuse or discipline any of the students and employees or staff members that not only created an environment where such abuse was permitted to occur but also who conspired to cover-up the abuse that occurred while under their supervision. Defendant’s knowing acquiescence and silence with respect to the known, or reasonably knowable, activities its agents and/or employees who concealed information from law enforcement and conspired with school administrators to cover-up Plaintiff’s sexual abuse and subsequent harassment, constituted a course of conduct through which acts of sexual violence and mental torment and the violation of the sanctity of children were condoned, approved, and effectively authorized.

205. Through its failure to timely reprimand and sanction the acts referenced above, and for all of the other reasons set forth herein including, without limitation, its failure to take the steps necessary to prevent the occurrence of such reprehensible acts, Defendant LC ratified said actions and, accordingly, is vicariously liable for the actions of their employees, including Weber.

206. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to adequately and properly:

a. Employ processes that screen out and/or prevent the hiring of incompetent employees such as Weber;
b. supervise its agents, employees, servants, and/or staff members, including Weber, and other individuals that knew or should have known that B.M. sexually abused Plaintiff;
c. train its agents, employees, servants, and/or staff members, including Weber, and other individuals that knew or should have known that B.M. sexually abused Plaintiff;
d. employ policies that screen out and/or prevent the retention of employees who condone and cover-up sexual abuse;
e. investigate employees’ background and/or information it knew or should have known during the course of their employment, including that they condone and cover-up sexual abuse.

207. The negligent, reckless, intentional, outrageous, deliberately and recklessly indifferent and unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants as set forth above and herein, consisted of inter alia:
a. failing to report allegations of sexual abuse pursuant to 63 Pa.C.S. § 6311, et seq.
b. failing to open an investigative file on an allegation of child sexual abuse;
c. failing to generate any written reports on an allegation of child sexual abuse at or around the time the allegation was made;
d. failing to contact and/or coordinate with outside law enforcement agencies regarding an allegation of child sexual abuse;
e. failing to inform any prosecuting authority of an allegation of child sexual abuse;
f. permitting and/or allowing an environment in which Weber violated or engaged in conduct, in concert with others, that would constitute violations of Pennsylvania criminal statutes prohibiting Unsworn Falsification (18 Pa.C.S. § 4904), and/or Tampering with Evidence (18 Pa.C.S. § 4910), and/or Intimidation of Witnesses (18 Pa.C.S. § 4952), and/or Obstructing Administration of Law (18 Pa.C.S. § 5101), and/or Official Oppression (18 Pa.C.S. § 5301), constituting negligence per se;
g. failing to properly and adequately supervise and discipline its employees to prevent the above described unpermitted, harmful, and unlawful conduct;
h. failing to adopt, enforce, and/or follow adequate policies and procedures for the protection and reasonable supervision of agents and/or employees, including Weber, and, in the alternative, failing to implement and comply with such procedures which had been adopted;
i. creating an environment that facilitated dereliction of duties as described above and throughout this Complaint;
j. failing to adopt, enforce and/or follow policies and procedures to protect minors from unpermitted, harmful, and unlawful conduct on the part of Defendant’s agents and/or employees;
k. violation of duties imposed by Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 302B, 314, 315, 317, 323, 324A, 343, 344 and 371 and Restatement (Second) of Agency § 213 as adopted in Pennsylvania;
l. failing to warn Plaintiff of the risk of harm posed by Weber after Defendants knew or should have known of such risk;
m. failing to provide Plaintiff with any assistance in coping with the injuries sustained;
n. ratifying B.M’s conduct;
o. failing to adopt, enforce and/or follow policies and procedures to communicate with victims of crime and/or utilize victim assistance programs or agencies to do so;
p. failing to warn Plaintiff of the risk of harm that Plaintiff may suffer as a result of further contact with B.M.;
q. failing to adopt/implement and/or enforce policies and procedures for the reporting to law enforcement, Office of Children and Youth, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and/or other authorities of harmful acts to children;
r. failing to report B.M.’s harmful acts to authorities both within LC and/or other authorities, including but not limited to the MBPD;
s. failing to implement adequate and proper policies and/or by-laws regarding sexual abuse and/or harassment and/or violating its own policies and/or by-laws regarding sexual abuse and/or harassment;
t. failing to implement adequate and proper policies and/or by-laws regarding the recognition of criminal offenses, the retention and/or spoliation of evidence, interviewing witnesses, contacting and cooperating with victims of crime, contacting and cooperating with outside law enforcement agencies when necessary, and other functions essential to law enforcement and/or violating its own policies and/or by-laws regarding use of computers, cell phones, social media and communication by students;
u. violating the requirements of Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law, 23 § 6311(a) and (b), and/or the Educator Discipline Act, 24 P.S. §§ 2070.1 et seq. constituting negligence per se;
v. ignoring, concealing, or otherwise mitigating the seriousness of the known danger that B.M. posed;
w. failing to investigate the sexual abuse that was committed by B.M. on Plaintiff;
x. failing to conduct an unbiased and non-discriminatory investigation of Plaintiff’s abuse;
y. failing to afford Plaintiff due process and equal protection under the law in the scope of said investigation;
z. violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights;

aa. failing to take any law enforcement action against B.M. knowing that he sexually abused a student and disseminated video depictions of that abuse on social media;
bb. failing to adequately and properly train its employees regarding sexual abuse of minors; and
cc. negligently managing and/or operating its county detectives, including Weber.

208. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, Plaintiff was harmed as a result and has sustained physical and emotional injuries, embarrassment, mental anguish, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life and life’s pleasures.

209. Plaintiff has been and will likely, into the future, be caused to incur medical expenses and Plaintiff may likely incur a loss of earning capacity in the future.

210. Defendants knew or should have known about the severe risk of their failure to take any appropriate precautions outlined above and acted with a reckless disregard for such risk for which Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby seeks punitive damages pursuant to the requirements of Pennsylvania law.

211. Defendants’ actions and failures as described herein are outrageous and were done recklessly with a conscious disregard of the risk of harm to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby seeks punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants LC, Weber, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT VII – NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, Plaintiff v. All Defendants” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY – “State Law Claims COUNT V – NEGLIGENCE Plaintiff v. WASD, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20″

Photo: Myrtle Beach Police Department image (top left)

Horry County Solicitor’s Office image (top right)

Atlantica Resort room image (bottom)

A previous, multi-part series of articles was published on this website with results of a more than 18-month long investigation by Talk Williamsport.com.

This story is graphic and contains details related to multiple indecent sexual assaults.

The author and editor of this story have made the editorial decision to not publish the names of the individuals under the age of 18 at the time of the incident who have been clearly identified as committing these acts in this case; even though they have been formally charged with a crime in South Carolina.

 

A Baseball Story In The Birthplace Of Little League Baseball

IF NOTHING HAPPENED IN MYRTLE BEACH

WHY WON’T THE WASD TELL US THE STORY?

THE 2018 WAHS BASEBALL MYRTLE BEACH STORY –

State Law Claims

COUNT V – NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff v. WASD, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20

By Todd Bartley, Talk Williamsport

News@talkwilliamsport.com

The following article is the tenth in a series based upon the recent First Amended Complaint filed in Federal Court by the attorneys for John Doe #1; who was indecently sexually assaulted during the Williamsport Area High School Baseball Team trip in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in the spring of 2018.

From the Complaint;

From the First Amended Complaint filed on Thursday, May 11, 2023.

177. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint the same as if fully set forth hereinafter.

178. At all relevant times, Defendants owed a duty to maintain a safe educational, athletic, and school environment for the students at WAHS, specifically Plaintiff.

179. At all relevant times, Defendants had a duty to protect and safeguard Plaintiff from hurt, harm, and danger while he was under their supervision.

180. At all relevant times, Defendants occupied a position of in loco parentis, and was under a duty to protect Plaintiff, and to provide him with safety and supervision akin to that which would have been provided by his own parents.

181. At all relevant times, Defendants had a duty to ensure that its employees were properly supervising students in their custody and care to protect them from the exact type of sexual abuse to which Plaintiff was subject.

182. At all relevant times, Defendants had a duty to provide for Plaintiff’s basic human needs, including the safety of his person and his educational environment.

183. By accepting custody of the minor Plaintiff, Defendants established an in loco parentis relationship with Plaintiff and in so doing, owed Plaintiff a duty to protect Plaintiff from injury.

184. At all relevant times, Defendants knew or should have known that their agents, employees, servants, and/or staff members were not qualified to supervise minor students in an environment where a lack of supervision created a risk of foreseeable harm to said minor students, including Plaintiff.

185. Defendants knew, had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice of the conduct of their agents, employees, and/or staff members who failed to protect the safety of children in their school, including Plaintiff. Yet Defendants failed to take reasonable steps and failed to implement reasonable safeguards to prevent acts of unlawful sexual abuse and to prevent or avoid placement of Plaintiff in functions or environments in which he would be endangered and abused.

186. Furthermore, at no time during the periods of time alleged did Defendants have in place a system or procedure to supervise and/or monitor its staff and students to ensure that children, including Plaintiff, were not abused.

187. Moreover, as set forth above, the incidents of abuse occurring when Plaintiff was in the care and custody of Defendants were purposefully shielded from the appropriate authorities. For years, Defendants failed to do anything to properly investigate Plaintiff’s abuse or discipline any of the students and employees or staff members that not only created an environment where
such abuse was permitted to occur but also who failed to properly investigate reports of Plaintiff’s abuse which occurred while under their supervision. Defendants’ knowing acquiescence and silence with respect to the known, or reasonably knowable, activities its students during an out-of-state athletic trip and at their school thereafter constituted a course of conduct through which acts of sexual violence, hazing, mental torment, bullying, harassment and the violation of the sanctity of children were condoned, approved, and effectively authorized.

188. Through its failure to timely reprimand and sanction the acts referenced above, and for all of the other reasons set forth herein including, without limitation, its failure to take the steps necessary to prevent the occurrence of such reprehensible acts, Defendants ratified said actions and, accordingly, is vicariously liable for the actions of their employees, including Dr. Brandon
Pardoe, Roger Freed, Sean McCann, Ryan Miller, Fred Holland, and John Does 1-20.

189. At all relevant times, Defendants failed to adequately and properly:
a. Employ processes that screen out and/or prevent the hiring of incompetent employees such as Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20.
b. supervise its agents, employees, servants, staff members, administrators, teachers, coaches, and/or students, including B.M., Plaintiff, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20, and other individuals that knew or should have known that B.M. sexually abused Plaintiff;
c. train its agents, employees, servants, staff members, administrators, teachers, coaches, and/or students, including B.M., Plaintiff, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland and John Does 1-20, and other individuals that knew or should have known that B.M. sexually abused Plaintiff;
d. employ policies that screen out and/or prevent the retention of employees who condone and cover-up sexual abuse;
e. investigate employees’ background and/or information it knew or should have known during the course of their employment, including that they condone and cover-up sexual abuse.

190. The negligent, reckless, intentional, outrageous, deliberately and recklessly indifferent and unlawful acts and omissions of Defendants as set forth above and herein, consisted of inter alia:
a. permitting B.M. to sexually abuse a minor student;
b. permitting B.M. to exercise authority, care, supervision, guidance, and/or control over Plaintiff at the time he sexually abused Plaintiff;
c. permitting B.M. to engage in illegal sexual conduct with another student within the course and scope of a school-related function while both B.M. and Plaintiff were in the care and custody of Defendants;
d. permitting and/or allowing an environment in which B.M. violated or engaged in conduct that would constitute violations of Pennsylvania criminal statutes prohibiting Institutional Sexual Assault (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3124.2(a.2)(1), and /or Indecent Assault (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3126), and/or Indecent Exposure (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3127), and/or Sexual Extortion (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3133), and/or Sexual Abuse of Children (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6312), and/or Transmission of Sexually Explicit Images by a Minor (18 Pa. C.S.A. § 6321), constituting negligence per se;
e. permitting and/or allowing an environment in which the Individual Defendants violated or engaged in conduct, in concert with others, that would constitute violations of Pennsylvania criminal statutes prohibiting Unsworn Falsification (18 Pa.C.S. § 4904), and/or Tampering with Evidence (18 Pa.C.S. § 4910), and/or Intimidation of Witnesses (18 Pa.C.S. § 4952), and/or Obstructing Administration of Law (18 Pa.C.S. § 5101), and/or Official Oppression (18 Pa.C.S. § 5301), constituting negligence per se;
f. failing to properly and adequately supervise and discipline its employees and/or agents to prevent the sexual abuse that occurred to Plaintiff;
g. failing to adopt, enforce, and/or follow adequate policies and procedures for the protection and reasonable supervision of children who attend Defendants’ school, including Plaintiff, and, in the alternative, failing to implement and comply with such procedures which had been adopted;
h. failing to implement, enforce, and/or follow adequate protective and supervisory measures for the protection of students at Defendants’ school, including Plaintiff;
i. creating an environment that facilitated sexual abuse of students, including Plaintiff;
j. creating an environment that facilitated the bullying and harassment of students, including Plaintiff;
k. failing to adopt, enforce and/or follow policies and procedures to protect minors against harmful influence and contact by other students, including B.M.;
l. violation of duties imposed by Restatement (Second) of Torts, §§ 302B, 314, 315, 317, 323, 324A, 343, 344 and 371 and Restatement (Second) of Agency §213 as adopted in Pennsylvania;
m. failing to warn Plaintiff of the risk of harm posed by B.M. after Defendants knew or should have known of such risk;
n. failing to provide Plaintiff with any assistance in coping with the injuries sustained;
o. ratifying B.M.’s conduct;
p. failing to warn Plaintiff of the risk of harm that Plaintiff may suffer as a result of further contact with B.M.;
q. failing to warn or otherwise make reasonably safe the property which Defendants controlled, leading to the harm of Plaintiff;
r. failing to adopt/implement and/or enforce policies and procedures for the reporting to law enforcement, Office of Children and Youth, the Pennsylvania Department of Education, authorities within Defendants’ school, and/or other authorities of harmful acts to children;
s. failing to report B.M.’s harmful acts to authorities within Defendants’ school and/or other authorities, including but not limited to the MBPD;
t. failing to implement adequate and proper policies and/or by-laws regarding sexual abuse and/or harassment and/or violating its own policies and/or by-laws regarding sexual abuse and/or harassment;
u. failing to implement adequate and proper policies and/or by-laws regarding use of computers, cell phones, social media and communication by students and/or violating its own policies and/or by-laws regarding use of computers, cell phones, social media and communication by students;
v. violating the requirements of Pennsylvania’s Child Protective Services Law, 23 § 6311(a) and (b), and/or the Educator Discipline Act, 24 P.S. §§ 2070.1 et seq. constituting negligence per se;
w. ignoring, concealing, or otherwise mitigating the seriousness of the known danger that B.M. posed;
x. failing to prevent the sexual abuse that was committed by B.M. on Plaintiff;
y. allowing B.M. to remain at school after knowing that he sexually abused a student and disseminated video depictions of that abuse on social media;
z. failing to properly supervise and/or discipline its employees who created an environment in which B.M.’s abuse of Plaintiff was permitted to take place;
aa. failing to adequately and properly train its employees regarding sexual abuse of students; and
bb. negligently managing and/or operating Defendants’ school.

191. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, Plaintiff was subjected to sexual abuse in an environment Defendants knew or reasonably should have known such abuse was likely to occur.

192. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, video depicting Plaintiff’s sexual abuse was disseminated, which caused Plaintiff to be subjected to ridicule, bullying, and harassment at Defendants’ school.

193. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, the harassment of Plaintiff became ongoing and continued, unabated, for months, resulting in him leaving the school district.

194. As a proximate and direct result of Defendants’ negligence and/or reckless conduct described herein, Plaintiff was harmed as a result and has sustained physical and emotional injuries, embarrassment, mental anguish, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life and life’s pleasures.

195. Plaintiff has been and will likely, into the future, be caused to incur medical expenses and Plaintiff may likely incur a loss of earning capacity in the future.

196. Defendants knew or should have known about the severe risk of their failure to take any appropriate precautions outlined above and acted with a reckless disregard for such risk for which Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby seeks punitive damages pursuant to the requirements of Pennsylvania law.

197. Defendants’ actions and failures as described herein are outrageous and were done recklessly with a conscious disregard of the risk of harm to Plaintiff for which Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby seeks punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants WASD, Pardoe, Freed, McCann, Miller, Holland, and John Does 1-20 in a sum in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand ($75,000.00) Dollars, and in excess of the prevailing arbitration limits, in compensatory damages and punitive damages, exclusive of pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interests and costs.

“COUNT VI – NEGLIGENCE, Plaintiff v. LC, Weber, and John Does 1-2” in this series, is forthcoming.

This is an exclusive and developing story on TalkWilliamsport.com.