Elliott v. Carter
791 S.E.2d 730
| Va. | 2016Background
- 13-year-old Caleb Smith, a non-swimmer, drowned on a 2011 Boy Scouts camping trip at the Rappahannock River after falling from a partially submerged sandbar.
- Trevor Carter, a 16-year-old Senior Patrol Leader, led Caleb and two other Scouts onto the sandbar; one companion could swim, the other could not.
- Carter and the capable swimmer returned toward shore by swimming; Carter instructed Caleb and the other non-swimmer to walk back along the sandbar.
- Caleb slipped into deeper water, called for help; Carter attempted to swim back to rescue him but was unsuccessful; adults also attempted rescues but Caleb drowned.
- Elliott (as administrator) sued Carter and others alleging gross negligence; after nonsuiting some parties, the circuit court granted summary judgment for all defendants, holding undisputed facts showed some care by Carter and thus no gross negligence as a matter of law.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed as to Carter, concluding that evidence Carter exercised some degree of care precluded gross-negligence as a matter of law; one justice dissented, arguing reasonable jurors could differ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carter’s conduct constituted gross negligence | Carter led a non-swimmer onto a partially submerged sandbar in a major river without life jacket and abandoned him; cumulative circumstances show reckless disregard | Carter exercised some care: he instructed route back, had given a swim lesson, was close enough to attempt rescue and tried to save Caleb | Court: No gross negligence as a matter of law; evidence of some care defeats gross-negligence claim |
| Whether a gross-negligence claim is ordinarily for the jury when facts undisputed | Elliott: facts (non-swimmer led into strong river, no life vest, abandoned on sandbar, ineffective rescue) create jury question | Carter: undisputed facts show some care so no reasonable juror could find gross negligence | Court: Generally jury question, but where reasonable minds could not differ, court may rule; here no jury question |
| Proper standard for gross negligence under Virginia law | Gross negligence may be shown by cumulative acts demonstrating utter disregard; slight acts of care separated in time should not negate gross negligence | Even slight care (attempted rescue, instructions) negates gross negligence because standard is indifference/absence of slight diligence | Court: Standard is indifference; showing some degree of care defeats gross-negligence claim |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on undisputed facts | Elliott: factual record can be viewed in her favor and supports gross negligence | Carter: undisputed admissions and pleadings show care, so summary judgment appropriate | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Carter |
Key Cases Cited
- Cowan v. Hospice Support Care, Inc., 268 Va. 482 (2004) (defines gross negligence as indifference and utter disregard amounting to complete neglect of another’s safety)
- Chapman v. City of Virginia Beach, 252 Va. 186 (1996) (cumulative negligent acts can show reckless disregard; deliberate conduct is important evidence)
- Frazier v. City of Norfolk, 234 Va. 388 (1987) (gross negligence usually a jury question unless reasonable minds could not differ)
- Colby v. Boyden, 241 Va. 125 (1991) (evidence that defendant exercised some diligence precludes gross negligence as a matter of law)
- St. Joe Co. v. Norfolk Redev’t & Hous. Auth., 283 Va. 403 (2012) (standard of review for summary judgment: de novo application of law to undisputed facts)
- Commercial Business Systems v. BellSouth Services, 249 Va. 39 (1998) (when evaluating summary judgment, courts view evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party)
- Thomas v. Snow, 162 Va. 654 (1934) (distinguishes ordinary, gross, and willful negligence by degree of inattention)