M.S.D. of Martinsville v. Jackson
9 N.E.3d 230
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- MWMS students C.J. and B.K. sued the School District for failing to protect them from a former student who committed a school shooting; trial court denied summary judgment.
- Phelps, a former student with a lengthy disciplinary history, entered MWMS on a day with doors unlocked and attacked C.J. as monitors observed but did not intervene.
- School safety plan was developed by Principal Lipps, who stated she was responsible for West’s operation and safety planning; board involvement in policy unclear.
- District argued ITCA discretionary-function immunity and that Lipps’ safety-plan decisions were planning/operational but not final policy; plaintiffs argued plan execution breached duty.
- Court held: ITCA immunity does not apply to Lipps’ implementation; genuine issues of material fact exist on foreseeability, duty, and contributory negligence; denial of summary judgment affirmed.
- Contributory negligence under Indiana law does not bar governmental claims unless sole fault is plaintiff’s; issues for jury on foreseeability and duty evaluation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ITCA discretionary function immunity applies | C.J. and B.K. challenge only implementation, not policy | Safety plan decisions are discretionary policy | Immunity not established; denial affirmed |
| Was there a breach of duty to protect students? | District failed to foresee and prevent the shooting | No breach; precautions were reasonable | Genuine issues of material fact; breach not as a matter of law |
| Foreseeability of the shooting | Past threats and Phelps’s presence made shooting foreseeable | Foreseeability cannot be assumed; contested facts | Verdict reserved for the trier of fact |
| Contributory negligence of C.J. | C.J. acted to seek safety after threats; not contributorily negligent | C.J. failed to follow mother’s warning | Jury question; not resolved as a matter of law |
| Whether the trial court properly denied summary judgment overall | There are unresolved facts on foreseeability and duty | If immunity and duty are resolved in appellant’s favor, summary judgment would be appropriate | Affirmed; denial of summary judgment upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Peavler v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Monroe Cnty., 528 N.E.2d 40 (Ind.1988) (planning/operational test for ITCA discretionary immunity)
- McClyde v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis, 752 N.E.2d 229 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (duty to protect students when attacker has violent propensity; foreseeability)
- Beching v. Levee, 764 N.E.2d 669 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (principal’s authority; not a public official; policy authority with school board)
- Randolph Co. Hospital v. Livingstion, 650 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (summary judgment inappropriate where factual disputes on duty/foreseeability)
- Roe v. North Adams Community School Corp., 647 N.E.2d 655 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (foreseeability of conduct in school-duty analysis)
- Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC v. Nat’l Trust Ins. Co., 3 N.E.3d 1 (Ind.2014) (failure to maintain hydrants not discretionary immunity; ITCA does not shield)