Joy Ann Clark v. Board of Ed. of the County of Fayette
15-1146
| W. Va. | Nov 10, 2016Background
- On January 3, 2013, Joy Ann Clark slipped and fell on snow/ice in the Divide Elementary School parking lot while at the school as a 4‑H leader/parent; she alleged severe knee injury and other damages.
- Clark sued the Fayette County Board of Education (the Board) on October 27, 2014, alleging negligence for failing to plow or salt the parking lot.
- Discovery deadline was set for September 15, 2015; Clark conducted no written discovery and took no depositions; the Board deposed Clark and her passenger.
- The Board moved for summary judgment (Aug. 24, 2015), arguing statutory immunity under W. Va. Code § 29‑12A‑5(a)(6) for snow/ice caused by weather.
- Clark opposed, claiming the motion was premature, that genuine issues of affirmative negligence existed (e.g., failed contractor, lack of equipment/salt), and that a “special relationship” exception applied.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment (Oct. 23, 2015); the Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Clark failed to pursue discovery and the snow/ice resulted from weather (statutory immunity applied).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was premature | Clark: hearing occurred before depositions of an unnamed key witness; needed more discovery | Board: discovery deadline passed; Clark did not diligently pursue discovery | Court: Motion was ripe; Clark had adequate time but performed no discovery and offered no Rule 56(f) affidavit |
| Whether the Board’s conduct constituted an "affirmative negligent act" removing immunity | Clark: Board knew contractor/equipment problems and intentionally failed to provide salt/equipment — creates factual dispute | Board: Snow/ice was caused by weather, not by any act of the Board | Court: No genuine issue that weather caused the condition; immunity applies unless a political subdivision affirmatively caused the snow/ice |
| Whether the "special relationship" exception to public duty/public‑entity immunity applies | Clark: special relationship with the Board created a duty that avoids immunity | Board: Claim concerns maintenance of parking lot, not enforcement of statutes; special relationship inapplicable | Court: Exception inapplicable—case concerns maintenance, not statutory enforcement; immunity stands |
| Whether other arguments (contractual obligation, public policy, intentional/wanton conduct) could defeat immunity | Clark: raised below but did not develop arguments in circuit court | Board: such arguments were not properly presented below | Court: Clark failed to raise/preserve these contentions below; appellate court declined to consider them |
Key Cases Cited
- Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 (summary‑judgment standard and de novo review)
- Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Fed. Ins. Co. of New York, 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (summary judgment procedural standards)
- Powderidge Unit Owners Ass’n v. Highland Properties, Ltd., 196 W. Va. 692, 474 S.E.2d 872 (need for adequate discovery before summary judgment; diligence in pursuing discovery)
- Porter v. Grant County Board of Education, 219 W. Va. 282, 633 S.E.2d 38 (political subdivision immunity does not apply to affirmative acts that place snow/ice)
- State ex rel. Corp. of Charles Town v. Sanders, 224 W. Va. 630, 687 S.E.2d 568 (statutory immunity for weather‑caused snow/ice; relying on Porter)
- Parkulo v. West Virginia Bd. of Probation and Parole, 199 W. Va. 161, 483 S.E.2d 507 (discussing special‑relationship exception to public duty doctrine)