Paulette Billie v. Autism Speaks Inc

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 12-4559
_____________
PAULETTE BILLIE; RONALD BILLIE,
Appellants
v.
AUTISM SPEAKS, INC.
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Civ. No. 5-12-cv-02261)
District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Bayslon
_____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
December 13, 2013
Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, FUENTES, and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: December 16, 2013)
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
FUENTES, Circuit Judge:
Appellants Paulette and Ronald Billie appeal from the District Court’s judgment in
favor of Autism Speaks, Inc. (“Autism Speaks”). The Billies sought to recover from
Autism Speaks for an injury Paulette sustained at a fundraiser in a park near Allentown,
Pennsylvania. The District Court granted Autism Speaks’s motion for summary
judgment, on the grounds that “a reasonable fact-finder could not infer, based on the
evidence in the record, that [Autism Speaks] had possession of the park.” Billie v. Autism
Speaks, No. 12 Civ. 2261, 2012 WL 6526869, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2012). We now
affirm.1
I.
Autism Speaks is a non-profit organization that raises funds for autism and
research, in part by holding “Walk for Autism Speaks” fundraising events around the
country. Walkers are encouraged to raise money before taking part in these walks.
Autism Speaks held one such event at Lehigh Parkway, which is owned, maintained, and
regulated by the City of Allentown. The City granted Autism Speaks a permit to use
Lehigh Parkway for the walk. Under that permit, Autism Speaks was required to follow
the rules and regulations of the Parkway. During the walk, Autism Speaks lacked the
ability to exclude the general public from walking, running, fishing, bicycling, or
otherwise enjoying the Parkway. Thus, Autism Speaks could not exclude persons from
the Walk for Autism Speaks who had not taken part in the fundraising efforts. Nor was
Autism Speaks permitted to close the Parkway’s streets to public traffic.
1
The District Court had jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary
review of a district court’s decision to grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law. ZF
Meritor, LLC v. Eaton Corp., 696 F.3d 254, 268 (3d Cir. 2012).
2
On the day of the event, Autism Speaks—with the City’s permission—set up
portable toilets, tents, and a band trailer in the Parkway. These items were removed from
the Parkway after the walk’s completion.
Paulette Billie attended the walk, along with 8,000 to 10,000 other persons. After
parking her car in a field that Autism Speaks used as a makeshift parking lot, Paulette got
out of her car and stepped into a large hole. As a result of the misstep, Paulette fractured
her ankle.
The Billies brought a negligence action against Autism Speaks in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, based upon a theory of premises liability.
After discovery, Autism Speaks moved for summary judgment. Concluding that no
reasonable juror could find Autism Speaks to be the “possessor” of Lehigh Parkway, the
District Court granted the motion and dismissed the case. The Billies appealed.
II.
Under Pennsylvania law, a party may be held liable for an injuries that occur on a
premises only if that party possesses the premises in question.2 Blackman v. Federal
Realty Inv. Trust, 664 A.2d 139, 142 (Pa. 1995); see also Estate of Zimmerman v. Se. Pa.
Trans. Auth., 168 F.3d 680, 684 (3d Cir. 1999) (explaining that “[t]he duty to protect
against known dangerous conditions falls upon the possessor of the land”). A
“possessor of land” is one who “occupies the land with the intent to control it.” Id. A
party is “considered . . . in control of [a] premises” if it “has authority to manage the land
and regulate its use.” Stanton v. Lackawanna Energy Ltd., 886 A.2d 667, 676 (Pa. 2005).
2
The parties agree that Pennsylvania law applies in this case.
3
While a party may possess land without owning it, Davis v. City of Philadelphia, 987
A.2d 1274, 1279 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), “use of [land] does not [necessarily] equate with
possession,” Estate of Zimmerman, 168 F.3d at 685.
The District Court granted Autism Speaks’ motion for summary judgment after
concluding that the Billies had failed, as a matter of law, to prove that Autism Speaks was
the possessor of Lehigh Parkway. The District Court explained:
The undisputed facts show that: (1) the City of Allentown owns and
maintains the park; (2) Defendant obtained a permit to use the park which
required adherence to the City’s rules and regulations; (3) Defendant did
not modify the park other than by bringing in port-a-johns, tents, and a
band trailer; and (4) Defendants have no authority to exclude the public
from the park.
Billie, 2012 WL 6526869, at *4. For substantially the same reasons outlined by the
District Court, we agree that, based on the undisputed evidence in the record, no
reasonable trier of fact could conclude that Autism Speaks was a possessor of Lehigh
Parkway. This conclusion is particularly compelled by the fact that Autism Speaks
lacked the ability to exclude patrons unassociated with its event from the Parkway. As
noted in Hill v. Superior Property Management Services, Inc., because “[a] person who
has the control of a landowner in actual occupation of property has both the rights and the
corresponding abilities to deal with the property as he sees fit . . . [, t]he right of exclusion
is significant . . . .” --- P.3d ---, 2013 WL 5587843, at *4-5 (Utah, Oct. 11, 2013); see
also O’Connell v. Turner Constr. Co., 949 N.E.2d 1105, 1109 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011)
4
(holding that a defendant did not possess a property, and thus could not be liable for
injury that occurred there, because he could not “exclude anyone from the premises”).3
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the District Court is affirmed.
3
Even assuming arguendo that a question of fact existed as to whether Autism Speaks
possessed Lehigh Parkway at the time in question, the Billies’ suit would likely be
precluded by Pennsylvania’s Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (“RULWA”),
which provides landowners and land possessors with immunity from negligence liability
in instances where the land is provided to the public for recreational purposes. 68 P.S. §
477–3.
5