214 So. 3d 1084
Miss. Ct. App.2016Background
- Seventeen-year-old Marshuan Braxton joined a church-led mission trip to Costa Rica organized by First United Methodist Church of New Albany (FUNA) and led by associate pastor Amanda Gordon.
- On June 21, 2009, while at a Pacific-side beach, Braxton and other minors climbed on a volcanic rock formation; a large wave swept Braxton into dangerous currents and he drowned despite immediate rescue efforts.
- Braxton’s legal guardian signed youth medical/parental consent and Braxton signed a release form before travel; Braxton was a minor, raising questions about the release's enforceability.
- Colyer (Braxton’s mother) sued FUNA for wrongful death alleging negligent planning, supervision, and failure to warn of hazardous ocean conditions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for FUNA; the appellate court reviewed de novo and found genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty and adequacy of supervision | FUNA owed and breached a duty to supervise Braxton on the trip, causing his death | FUNA argued no negligence and diminished duty due to Braxton’s age | Reversed: duty existed and adequacy of supervision is a jury question; genuine factual disputes exist |
| Duty to warn of dangerous beach/ocean conditions | Amanda (trip leader) knew or should have known of Pacific surf/riptide hazards and failed to warn | FUNA contended it reasonably planned the trip and bore no liability for unforeseeable hazards | Reversed: issues of foreseeability, breach, and causation remain for jury determination |
| Use of signed waivers/releases | Waivers were signed but plaintiff argues they do not bar recovery for defendant’s own negligence and Braxton (a minor) could not validly waive | FUNA asserted waivers/releases barred suit (including third‑party beneficiary argument) | Court held waivers were not applied by trial court; releases by minor/third parties are not binding on plaintiff, and pre‑injury waivers cannot bar negligence claims here |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Colyer presented specific facts raising triable issues (warnings, planning, supervision, timeline discrepancies) | FUNA argued no genuine issue of material fact warranted summary judgment | Summary judgment was improper; view evidence in plaintiff’s favor and remand for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Moss Point Sch. Dist. v. Stennis, 132 So.3d 1047 (Miss. 2014) (summary-judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Karpinsky v. Am. Nat’l Ins., 109 So.3d 84 (Miss. 2013) (outline of summary-judgment evidence and nonmovant response requirements)
- Summers v. St. Andrew’s Episcopal Sch., 759 So.2d 1203 (Miss. 2000) (adequacy of supervision is a jury question)
- Pritchard v. Von Houten, 960 So.2d 568 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (duty and foreseeability as components of negligence)
- Ghane v. Mid-S. Inst. of Self Def. Shooting, Inc., 137 So.3d 212 (Miss. 2014) (limitations on enforceability of preinjury waivers for negligence)
- Turnbough v. Ladner, 754 So.2d 467 (Miss. 1999) (ambiguous waivers construed against drafter; cannot bar negligence claims for defendant’s malfeasance)