Harris ex rel. Harris v. Board of Trustees
126 So. 3d 100
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Seventh-grade student Jonathan Taylor Harris attended Clinton Junior High and took the statewide Mississippi Curriculum Test (MCT) on May 1, 2007; the District had a written test-security plan requiring proctors and procedures for "student emergencies."
- Teachers Kevin Daniels and Corey Schneider proctored Harris’s classroom during the MCT and initially denied Harris’s multiple requests to use the restroom during testing.
- After a delayed permission while the proctor was being summoned, Harris urinated on himself in front of classmates and later sued for emotional and financial damages, alleging outrage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence (including negligent supervision), and negligence per se.
- The District moved for summary judgment asserting immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA), arguing the teachers’ decisions were discretionary functions; the county and circuit courts granted summary judgment for the District.
- Harris appealed the circuit court’s ruling; the appellate court affirmed, holding the refusal to permit restroom use was a discretionary act tied to testing-security and classroom control and thus barred by MTCA immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether teachers’ denial of restroom requests is discretionary under MTCA | Harris: the District’s plan classifies restroom need as a "student emergency," making it non-discretionary and ministerial; District failed to follow its own plan | District: the testing plan left timing/judgment to proctors; decision whether request was an emergency involves discretion tied to testing security and classroom control | Held: discretionary — immunity applies |
| Whether a failure to follow the District’s plan defeats immunity | Harris: District policy was thwarted when teachers didn’t follow protocol, removing discretionary protection | District: even with a plan, the plan delegated judgment to proctors; application involves choice | Held: no — the plan left room for proctor judgment, so immunity remains |
| Whether public-policy considerations weigh against immunity | Harris: not grounded in public policy sufficient to justify immunity | District: denying restroom access implicated test security, integrity, and classroom order — public-policy considerations supporting discretion | Held: public-policy considerations support discretionary immunity |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment on immunity grounds | Harris: factual dispute over emergency status precludes summary judgment | District: immunity is a question of law and proper for summary judgment when no material facts dispute discretionary nature | Held: summary judgment affirmed — immunity is a legal question and applies here |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratt v. Gulfport-Biloxi Reg'l Airport Auth., 97 So.3d 68 (Miss. 2012) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Dancy v. E. Miss. State Hosp., 944 So.2d 10 (Miss. 2006) (immunity is a question of law appropriate for summary judgment)
- Covington Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Magee, 29 So.3d 1 (Miss. 2010) (distinguishing discretionary vs. ministerial duties)
- Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. Montgomery, 80 So.3d 789 (Miss. 2012) (two-part public-policy test for discretionary function)
- Boyett ex rel. Boyett v. Tomberlin, 678 So.2d 124 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995) (teacher denial of restroom use held discretionary)
- Harris v. McCray, 867 So.2d 188 (Miss. 2003) (school employees granted immunity where discipline decisions implicated student safety and order)
- Sanders v. Riverboat Corp. of Miss.-Vicksburg, 913 So.2d 351 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (MTCA provides exclusive civil remedy against governmental entities)