335 So.3d 1082
Miss. Ct. App.2021Background
- On May 5, 2017, A.R.’s mother called Houston High School reporting that another student, T.B., had threatened to harm A.R.; the secretary alerted Assistant Principal Winters, who told Principal Cook.
- With about 15 minutes before arrival, Cook and Winters planned to separate and question the students; Coach Pettit met A.R. when her bus arrived and escorted her to the largely unoccupied gym.
- When T.B.’s bus arrived, Cook and Winters attempted to escort T.B. to the office; T.B. broke free, ran into the gym, and chased A.R. into the bleachers.
- A.R. jumped from the last bleacher step to the gym floor, injuring her knee; A.R. later had surgery. A.R. said teacher Carolyn Matthews told her to jump; Matthews and Pettit denied this.
- A.R.’s guardian sued the school district under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act, alleging breach of the ministerial duty in Miss. Code § 37‑9‑69 to hold pupils to strict account and to use ordinary care to minimize foreseeable risks.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the School District; the Court of Appeals affirmed (majority), concluding no genuine issue of material fact showed a breach. A five-judge dissent would have reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the School District breach its ministerial duty under §37‑9‑69 (failure to hold T.B. strictly accountable / to use ordinary care)? | Robertson: school failed to adequately supervise/separate students and thus breached §37‑9‑69 and created foreseeable risk. | School: administrators promptly acted on the tip, formulated a plan, escorted students, followed training (not to restrain absent definite threat); actions were reasonable under time constraints. | Court: No genuine issue of material fact; no breach shown; summary judgment for School District affirmed. |
| Is there a factual dispute about whether Matthews instructed A.R. to jump (and does that create negligence)? | Robertson: A.R. testified Matthews told her to jump, which led to injury; creates triable issue. | School: Matthews denies; even if true A.R. voluntarily jumped and could have descended; testimony does not establish negligent breach of duty. | Court: Even assuming A.R.’s account, evidence insufficient to show breach or proximate causation that would defeat summary judgment. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate under the governing standard (genuine issue of material fact)? | Robertson: disputed facts and inferences entitle plaintiff to trial. | School: movant met burden; nonmovant failed to produce significant probative evidence of a breach. | Court: Applied de novo review; found no genuine dispute a reasonable jury could resolve for plaintiff; affirmed summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers ex rel. Dawson v. St. Andrew’s Episcopal Sch. Inc., 759 So. 2d 1203 (Miss. 2000) (school duty is to exercise ordinary care, not insure student safety)
- Smith ex rel. Smith v. Leake Cnty. Sch. Dist., 195 So. 3d 771 (Miss. 2016) (statutory ministerial duty under §37‑9‑69 described)
- J.E. v. Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist., 264 So. 3d 786 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018) (§37‑9‑69 imposes ministerial duty to use ordinary care and minimize foreseeable risks)
- Smith v. Baker, 321 So. 3d 575 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Wood v. Reynolds, 316 So. 3d 208 (Miss. Ct. App. 2021) (movant’s burden and nonmovant’s duty to produce significant probative evidence)