$________ Negligent supervision - Camp catering to children with cerebral palsy - Small 11-year-old boy is transferred from nine to 11-year-old children's cabin to 12 to 16-year-old children's cabin without advising infant parents - In loco parentis doctrine - Much larger co-defendant older camper with history of public masturbation forces infant plaintiff to perform oral sex on him - PTSD.

Monmouth County, NJ

In this action, the plaintiff contended that the defendant sleep-away camp catering to children with cerebral palsy, negligently failed to provide proper supervision. The plaintiff established that the defendant indicated in its marketing efforts that it provided a counselor for every two campers and maintained that in view of such evidence and the disabilities of its campers, very significant supervision was required.

The camp had two summer sessions and the infant plaintiff was a camper for both. The plaintiff, who was four feet 11 inches tall and who weighed approximately 85 pounds, was in the cabin with nine to 11-year-old children for the first session and was transferred to the cabin for 12 to 16-year-old children for the second session without consultation with the parents. The plaintiff contended that during the second session, the much larger 16-year-old co-defendant forced the infant plaintiff to perform oral sex.

The plaintiff’s security expert contended that the camp should not have transferred the boy to the other cabin. The expert maintained that in addition to the evidence that the infant plaintiff was very small for his age and his disability, which involved significantly reduced mobility on one side, the camp should have taken into account that approximately six foot one inch 16-year-old assailant had a troubled history, including an incident of masturbating in public.

The expert also contended it was virtually impossible to supervise all of the children at night, when the incident occurred, and that in view of such factors, the transfer should not have been made, especially in the absence of advisement to the parents. The plaintiff also maintained that the camp was in loco parentis and that the liability for the actions of school employees that was imposed by Hardwicke vs. American Boychoir School ________ NJ Super 71, should be extended to the defendant camp. The defendant’s security expert denied that any duty was breached.

The infant plaintiff maintained that he sustained PTSD. The plaintiff’s psychologist would have offered a guarded prognosis.

The case was submitted to arbitration and resulted in an award of $________, with the individual defendant and the camp each 50% responsible. The actions of the co-defendant were not covered by insurance. The case against the camp subsequently settled for $________.