Wyatt Severance v. New Castle Community School Corporation a/k/a New Castle Career Center, and Turner Melton, 75 N.E.3d 541

In 2013 Wyatt Severance (17) and Turner Melton (19) attended a New Castle Career Center building‑trades program supervised by teacher Trevor Stout and an aide; students worked at a residential construction site each afternoon.
Melton had a reputation among peers as verbally abusive and domineering; some students avoided him and one student asked Stout to be kept separate from Melton.
On November 26, 2013, Melton confronted Severance, pushed him, shoved a broom into his throat, and after a brief struggle wrapped his leg around Severance’s leg, causing a tibial plateau fracture requiring surgery.
Severance sued Melton and the School for negligence. The School moved for summary judgment asserting (1) Severance was contributorily negligent and (2) the School did not breach any duty.
Severance opposed and designated an expert affidavit from Dr. Jean Peterson on bullying culture and 15 preventative/supervisory measures; the trial court struck the affidavit and granted summary judgment for the School.
The Court of Appeals reversed: it held the trial court erred in striking the affidavit and found genuine disputes of material fact on the School’s supervision/breach and on contributory negligence, requiring a jury determination.

Issue	Severance’s Argument	School’s Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by striking Dr. Peterson’s affidavit	Affidavit was timely, admissible, and relevant to supervision and bullying culture; expert credentials attached	Affidavit contained conclusory opinions, lacked methodology, and offered legal conclusions; should be struck	Court of Appeals: strike was erroneous — affidavit relevant to dispositive supervision issue and should have been considered
Whether summary judgment appropriately disposed of negligence and contributory‑negligence claims	Genuine issues of material fact exist as to (a) School’s breach of supervisory duty given known culture/behavior and (b) Severance’s contributory negligence; these should go to jury	As a government entity, contributory negligence (even slight) bars recovery; undisputed facts negate School’s breach	Court of Appeals: reversed summary judgment — genuine factual disputes exist on adequacy of supervision and on contributory negligence, so issues for the trier of fact

Morse v. Davis, 965 N.E.2d 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (trial court’s evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (summary judgment de novo; standards for genuine issue/material fact)
Ashcraft v. Ne. Sullivan Cty. Sch. Corp., 706 N.E.2d 1101 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (elements of negligence and burden on defendant at summary judgment)
McClyde v. Archdiocese of Indianapolis, 752 N.E.2d 229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (summary judgment inappropriate where adequacy of supervision is fact‑sensitive)
Miller v. Griesel, 308 N.E.2d 701 (Ind. 1974) (degree of care and adequate supervision depends on circumstances)
M.S.D. of Martinsville v. Jackson, 9 N.E.3d 230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (contributory negligence often for jury when multiple inferences exist)
Whitmore v. S. Bend Pub. Transp. Corp., 7 N.E.3d 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (definition and usual jury determination of contributory negligence)