Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantnegligenceliabilitystatutetriallegislative intent
defendantliabilitystatutetrialduty of care

Related Cases

Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency v. Jackson, 333 Conn. 206, 214 A.3d 841
View Case »
McFarlin v. Hall, 127 Ariz. 220, 619 P.2d 729
View Case »
Heiner v. Moretuzzo, 73 Ohio St.3d 80, 652 N.E.2d 664, 64 USLW 2145, 1995-Ohio-65
View Case »
Thing v. LaChusa, 231 Cal.Rptr. 439
View Case »
Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 106 S.Ct. 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249, 54 USLW 4771, 32 Ed. Law Rep. 1185
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

C.C.H. v. Philadelphia Phillies, Inc., 596 Pa. 23, 940 A.2d 336

Facts

On August 9, 2000, T.G., an 11-year-old girl, was attending a Phillies baseball game with her guardian when she became lost. After failing to receive assistance from the Phillies' security personnel, she encountered three young men who offered to help her but instead led her to a secluded area where they sexually assaulted her. T.G. later reported the incident to the police, and the individual defendants were charged in juvenile court. T.G. and her parent subsequently filed a civil complaint against the defendants and the Philadelphia Phillies, alleging battery and negligence.

The relevant facts of this case are as follows. On August 9, 2000, T.G. was attending a Phillies baseball game at Veteran's Stadium in Philadelphia with an adult family friend (hereinafter, “guardian”). At some point during the game, T.G. was separated from her guardian and became lost inside the stadium.

Issue

Whether the defense of consent is available in civil cases stemming from sexual contact with a minor under the age of 13 where the Legislature has precluded such defense by statute in criminal proceedings.

Whether the defense of consent is available in civil cases stemming from sexual contact with a minor under the age of 13 where the Legislature has precluded such defense by statute in criminal proceedings?

Rule

In civil cases involving sexual contact with minors under 13 years of age, evidence of the victim's consent to such contact is not an available defense in determining civil liability.

In determining civil liability for such contact, evidence of the victim's consent to sexual contact, like in criminal proceedings, is not an available defense.

Analysis

The court determined that the legislative intent behind criminalizing sexual contact with minors under 13, which precludes the defense of consent, should also apply in civil cases. The court emphasized that allowing consent as a defense would undermine the protective purpose of the law, which is to safeguard minors from sexual exploitation. The trial court's admission of evidence regarding the minor's consent was deemed a legal error that prejudiced the minor's right to a fair trial.

In reaching this conclusion, we note by way of background our decision in Congini v. Portersville Valve Co., 504 Pa. 157, 470 A.2d 515, 518 (1983), where we first articulated the duty of care owed by a social host to a minor guest where the minor is injured after imbibing alcoholic beverages provided by the host.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the minor's alleged consent and granted a new trial for the individual defendants, while affirming the judgment in favor of the Philadelphia Phillies.

Accordingly, we find it consistent with our legislature's intent to protect young children from sexual exploitation, to reject with equal force, in both the criminal and civil contexts, the proposition that an 11-year-old has the capacity to consent to sex.

Who won?

The prevailing party was T.G. in part, as the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's error warranted a new trial regarding the individual defendants. The court emphasized that the admission of consent evidence prejudiced T.G.'s case.

The prevailing party was T.G. in part, as the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court's error warranted a new trial regarding the individual defendants.

You must be