C.C. and J.C., as next friends of the minor child M.C. v. Harrison County Board of Education
20-0171
| W. Va. | Jun 17, 2021Background
- Parties: C.C. and J.C., as next friends of minor M.C., sued Harrison County Board of Education alleging multiple torts arising from assistant principal misconduct.
- Procedural posture: Petition pleaded eight counts; five alleged intentional torts (against which the Board asserted statutory immunity). Petitioners waived all but Count 5 (negligence per se) and Count 6 (negligent hiring, supervision, and retention) on appeal.
- Lower and majority rulings: The majority reinstated part of Count 5 and allowed the negligent-retention allegation as to the Assistant Principal, but dismissed negligent hiring and found the negligent-supervision claim legally and factually deficient under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Hutchison concurrence/dissent: Justice Hutchison agreed with most of the majority outcome (reinstating Count 5 in part and allowing negligent retention), agreed negligent hiring was properly dismissed, but strongly disagreed with the majority’s legal discussion of negligent supervision.
- Core disagreement: Hutchison argues the majority improperly relied on dicta from Taylor v. Cabell Huntington Hosp. and unpublished/federal decisions to define negligent supervision, and that negligent supervision can be based on an employee’s negligent, reckless, or intentional torts under common law and the Restatements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of negligent-supervision pleading | Complaint alleges Board failed to supervise Assistant Principal whose conduct harmed M.C.; thus claim should survive. | Claim lacks factual allegations giving Board notice of the nature of negligent supervision; dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). | Court: negligent-supervision allegation factually deficient; dismissal warranted (Hutchison agrees on pleading failure). |
| Negligent hiring claim | Board negligently hired an unfit Assistant Principal (part of Count 6). | Complaint fails to plead facts showing negligent hiring. | Court: negligent hiring properly dismissed for failure to plead. |
| Negligent retention as to Assistant Principal | Petitioners alleged Board negligently retained the Assistant Principal despite propensities causing harm. | Board immune for intentional torts; retention claim must be adequately pleaded. | Court: negligent-retention allegation as to the Assistant Principal may proceed. |
| Proper legal standard for negligent supervision | Negligent supervision encompasses employer’s direct negligence and can be based on employee negligent, reckless, or intentional torts; Restatements and many authorities support this view. | Majority (and circuit court) treated negligent supervision as requiring an underlying negligent act by the employee; relied on Taylor dicta and federal decisions. | Hutchison: majority erred to treat Taylor dicta and unpublished federal opinions as defining WV law; negligent-supervision liability may attach for intentional/reckless employee acts when employer negligently failed to control, supervise, or retain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Cabell Huntington Hosp., 208 W. Va. 128, 538 S.E.2d 719 (W. Va. 2000) (per curiam opinion referenced by majority and circuit court; Court declined to define negligent supervision in that case)
- Walker v. Doe, 210 W. Va. 490, 558 S.E.2d 290 (W. Va. 2001) (addressed precedential value of per curiam opinions)
- Lieving v. Hadley, 188 W. Va. 197, 423 S.E.2d 600 (W. Va. 1992) (discussed treatment of per curiam dicta and precedential weight)
- Robertson v. LeMaster, 171 W. Va. 607, 301 S.E.2d 563 (W. Va. 1983) (employer duty where employer’s conduct creates unreasonable risk of harm)
- Musgrove v. Hickory Inn, Inc., 168 W. Va. 65, 281 S.E.2d 499 (W. Va. 1981) (respondeat superior and related principles)
- Niece v. Elmview Group Home, 130 Wn.2d ? , 929 P.2d 420 (Wash. 1997) (recognized employer duty to prevent employee-inflicted intentional harm; cited for principle distinguishing vicarious liability from employer’s direct negligence)
- Doe v. Bishop of Charleston, 754 S.E.2d 494 (S.C. 2014) (example of negligent-supervision liability for intentional sexual misconduct by clergy)
- Cook v. Kudlacz, 974 N.E.2d 706 (Ohio 2012) (set forth multi-factor elements for negligent supervision/retention)
(Notes: Justice Hutchison relied heavily on Restatement (Second) of Agency and Restatement (Second) of Torts principles and on out-of-state and federal authority to argue that negligent supervision can be grounded in employer negligence even when employee misconduct is intentional.)