and the Due Process Clause”. Id. at 200, 109 S.Ct. 998. Restated, “[t]he affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State’s knowledge of the individual’s predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.” Id. The Third Circuit has also visited the state-created danger theory. See Morse v. Lower Merion School Dist., 132 F.3d 902 (3d Cir.1997) (finding as a matter of law that the defendants, a school district and a day care operator that leased a classroom from the district, were not liable to the survivors of a day care teacher who was killed by a third party when the district had unlocked the back entrance to the school to facilitate the work of contractors); Kneipp, 95 F.3d at 1199 (<HOLDING>); Mark, 51 F.3d at 1137 (finding that there
holding that summary judgment was improper and a triable issue of fact was presented under statecreated danger theory where police officers permitted an intoxicated pedestrian to walk home on a cold night resulting in that person falling down an embankment and suffering brain damage holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation holding that an appellate court may not consider an issue not presented to the trial judge on appeal from final judgment on the merits holding that defendants failed to raise triable issue of material fact where they did not establish that the type size of the copy they submitted in opposition to summary judgment motion was identical to that of the original contract