264 So. 3d 786
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- A.C., a 16-year-old special-education student with Down Syndrome (severe intellectual disability), was found after a sexual encounter with T.H., a 19-year-old special-education student, in a school bathroom; a rape kit confirmed the encounter.
- T.H.'s IEP documented behavioral issues, including prior inappropriate touching; A.C.'s IEP did not include any escort provision.
- On the day of the incident, staff dismissed T.H. early and believed he entered his ROTC class; they then dismissed A.C. and others to art class. School camera footage showed A.C. and T.H. together on the second floor shortly before they entered the girls’ bathroom out of camera view.
- Plaintiffs (A.C.’s mother and grandmother) sued Jackson Public School District (JPS) under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, alleging negligence, breach of statutory duties, and breach of contract (IEP/oral promise to provide escorts).
- Trial court (bench trial) found JPS owed the general ministerial duty to supervise under Miss. Code §37-9-69 but did not breach it; no specific duty to escort A.C. was in the IEP; oral promises were void against the written IEP; judgment for JPS affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JPS breached ministerial duty to supervise students | JPS failed to provide adequate supervision, causing A.C. to be sexually assaulted | JPS took reasonable, ordinary-care steps (staggered dismissal, monitored hallway) and did not breach duty | No breach; trial court’s factual finding affirmed |
| Whether A.C.’s IEP created a specific duty to escort her | IEP (and special-needs status) required an escort; breach = contractual/ministerial liability | IEP contained no escort provision; parent signed and did not appeal; no ministerial duty derived from IEP | IEP did not impose an escort duty; no error in trial court’s finding |
| Whether JPS failed to minimize foreseeable risk (foreseeability/reasonable steps) | T.H.’s history made sexual harm foreseeable; school failed to supervise (elevator, hallway, security officer inaction) | School reasonably staggered dismissals and monitored; no evidence T.H. had attempted leaving class to harm others before | Court found JPS took reasonable steps; harm was not shown to be foreseeable such that ordinary care was breached |
| Whether an alleged prior oral promise created a binding duty to escort | Principal’s alleged oral assurances created enforceable obligation to escort special-needs students | Oral promise is precluded by the written IEP (parol evidence rule); testimony of staff contradicted parents | Oral promise ineffective to alter written IEP; trial court credited school testimony; no ministerial duty created |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith ex rel. Smith v. Leake Cty. Sch. Dist., 195 So.3d 771 (Miss. 2016) (interpreting Miss. Code §37-9-69 as imposing a ministerial duty to use ordinary care to minimize foreseeable risks)
- Moss Point Sch. Dist. v. Stennis, 132 So.3d 1047 (Miss. 2014) (school duty to provide a safe environment)
- Summers ex rel. Dawson v. St. Andrew's Episcopal Sch. Inc., 759 So.2d 1203 (Miss. 2000) (school not insurer of pupil safety but must exercise ordinary care)
- Hayne v. The Doctors Co., 145 So.3d 1175 (Miss. 2014) (written contract cannot be varied by prior oral agreements)
- Wilcher v. Lincoln Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 243 So.3d 177 (Miss. 2018) (reinstated two-part public-policy test for ministerial vs. discretionary functions)