Charlie Raddin v. Manchester Educational Foundation, Inc., 175 So. 3d 1243

Richard Darden, a longtime Manchester coach/teacher and dean of students, was discovered in 2010 viewing male students showering; he pled guilty to voyeurism and was terminated.
Five former Manchester students (attended 1997–2003) sued Manchester, Dr. William Thompson, and Yazoo City Medical Clinic, alleging battery, invasion of privacy, outrage/intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, negligent hiring/supervision/retention, breach of unwritten contract, and related claims; suit filed May 26, 2010.
Plaintiffs had been subject to wrestling, overnight stays at Darden’s home, sports physicals and drug screens (1997–2003); they admitted they felt contact during those events and that no acute physical injury occurred then.
Dr. Thompson and the Clinic had provided voluntary team physicals; Darden (not licensed) assisted with some exams and specimen collection.
Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting statutes of limitations barred the claims; plaintiffs argued the discovery rule tolled limitations because their injuries were latent and only became apparent after Darden’s 2010 confession.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Manchester, Dr. Thompson, and the Clinic; the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery rule tolls statute for intentional torts (1-year limit)	Plaintiffs: injuries were latent; discovery rule tolled limitations until Darden’s 2010 confession	Defendants: plaintiffs knew or should have known of touching; discovery rule not applicable to these intentional torts	Court: Discovery rule not extended to these intentional torts; intentional claims barred as time‑barred
Battery (wrestling, physicals) — accrual timing	Plaintiffs: battery claim could not accrue until Darden’s voyeurism became known	Defendants: battery accrues at time of offensive contact; plaintiffs were aware of contact when it occurred	Court: Battery accrued at time of touching; no latent injury; battery claims time‑barred
Invasion of privacy (drug screens, physicals, sleepovers)	Plaintiffs: privacy invasions became manifest only after 2010 revelations	Defendants: monitoring/physicals were known events; no evidence Darden watched plaintiffs at showers	Court: Drug screens/physicals not latent; no evidence of shower voyeurism for these plaintiffs; invasion claims time‑barred
Negligence and breach of unwritten contract (3-year limit)	Plaintiffs: discovery rule tolls limitations because injury/causal wrongdoing was latent	Defendants: plaintiffs had sufficient information earlier; claims governed by three‑year rule and are time‑barred	Court: Plaintiffs cannot show latent injury; negligence and contract claims time‑barred

Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Guidant Mut. Ins. Co., 99 So. 3d 142 (Miss. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment stated)
Daniels v. GNB, Inc., 629 So. 2d 595 (Miss. 1993) (summary judgment viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Stringer v. Trapp, 30 So. 3d 339 (Miss. 2010) (discovery‑rule tolling often hinges on what plaintiff knew and when)
Huss v. Gayden, 991 So. 2d 162 (Miss. 2008) (discovery rule applies to latent injuries or unknown negligence)
PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. v. Lowery, 909 So. 2d 47 (Miss. 2005) (definition and limits of latent injury)
Staheli v. Smith, 548 So. 2d 1299 (Miss. 1989) (limited application of discovery rule to certain defamation cases)
Tichenor v. Roman Catholic Church of Archdiocese of New Orleans, 32 F.3d 953 (5th Cir. 1994) (refusing to apply discovery rule to claims based on illicit sexual acts where injury not shown latent)
Whitten v. Cox, 799 So. 2d 1 (Miss. 2000) (elements of battery require actual touching)
Donald v. Amoco Prod. Co., 735 So. 2d 161 (Miss. 1999) (outrage/intentional infliction of emotional distress discussed)
Stuckey v. The Provident Bank, 912 So. 2d 859 (Miss. 2005) (mere allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)