Cal U claims immunity to lawsuit in man’s beating
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
An official with the state attorney general’s office argued Tuesday before Commonwealth Court that California University of Pennsylvania cannot be sued for negligence by a man who was severely beaten in 2014 by a group of the school’s football players.
Deputy Attorney General Anthony Kovalchick, appearing in a Pittsburgh courtroom on behalf of the state-owned university, argued that the legal concept of sovereign immunity protects the school from the claims of Lewis Campbell III.
Under the concept of sovereign immunity, an entity or employee of the state is immune from civil liability when acting under the scope of his employment, unless one of nine exceptions in Pennsylvania law is met.
Mr. Campbell alleged in a suit filed in Washington County against the university and its athletic director, Karen Hjerpe, that the school’s “win-at-all-costs” mentality with regard to its football team led it to recruit players dismissed by other schools for criminal violations and disciplinary problems, and that by doing so, it posed a danger to those living in the community.
Washington County Common Pleas Judge Katherine B. Emery
dismissed Mr. Campbell’s claims for negligence and institutional negligence after the university claimed it was protected by sovereign immunity because its recruitment process was part of the school’s responsibilities as a state entity.
“While it can be argued that recruiting high risk players was ‘questionable,’ the act of recruiting players, alone, was certainly within the employment responsibilities of each defendant and was executed in furtherance of the employer’s interest,” she wrote.
Mr. Campbell appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing that “this win-at-allcosts mentality was not a power enumerated to the university by the statute which enables state universities to act as a member of the commonwealth.”
In addition, Mr. Campbell’s attorney, William Rush of Reading, alleged that Ms. Hjerpe’s conduct in supervising the team did not serve the university and was not within the scope of her state employment. Therefore, he said, it should not be protected by sovereign immunity. Mr. Kovalchick argued that Judge Emery’s decision should be affirmed because none of the allegations by Mr. Campbell would fall under any of the exceptions to immunity spelled out in the law.
Recruiting football players falls under the university’s mission, he wrote in his brief, and Ms. Hjerpe’s actions fell under her scope of employment.
Further, Mr. Kovalchick wrote that neither the university nor Ms. Herjpe owed Mr. Campbell any duty of care, since the attack happened off campus and at the hand of “five individuals who happened to be members of the University’s football team” and were not under school supervision at the time.
The case was scheduled for argument before a threejudge panel of the Commonwealth Court on Tuesday. However, Judge P. Kevin Brobson noted at the beginning of the session that Mr. Rush reported to the wrong location and would not be present for the argument.
Mr. Campbell was attacked while walking near Spuds restaurant on Wood Street near campus on Oct. 30, 2014. Police said the altercation began after one of the players, Corey Ford, made a derogatory statement to Mr. Campbell’s girlfriend, Shareese Asparagus.
Mr. Campbell said he was struck in the right side of his head, fell to the ground and lost consciousness.
As the players left the scene, the lawsuit said, they chanted “football strong.”
Mr. Campbell remained in a Pittsburgh hospital for several days in a medically induced coma.
Police charged Ford, as well as D’Andre Dunkley, Shelby Wilkerson, Jonathan Barlow and Rodney Gillin.
Charges against James Williamson were dismissed.
Ford, 25, pleaded no contest to aggravated assault and was ordered to serve 23 months in prison. The other defendants all pleaded guilty in July 2016 to simple assault and were ordered to serve 18 months probation.
“To be blunt, the university’s football team was completely out of control, and Dr. Hjerpe oversaw a program which turned a blind eye and provided no supervision to players who consistently acted in a manner which demonstrated the need for intense supervision,” Mr. Rush wrote in court filings.
A report commissioned by the university after the attack concluded that the school created “a dangerous football culture by placing a dangerously high premium on winning, isolating the team from campus and contacting police in attempt to defer legal proceedings against members of the team” according to Mr. Campbell’s lawsuit.
The report found that over a 27-month period, football players were either arrested or cited 43 times, the complaint alleged.