Doe, et al. v. N. Pontotoc Separate Sch. Dist.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CA-01749-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 05-15-2007 Opinion Author: BARNES, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Negligence - Notice of relationship - Duty to report - Section 97-5-24 - Breach of duty - Supervision and training Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Griffis, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. Judge(s) Concurring Separately: Carlton, J. Concurs in Result Only: Myers, P.J., Irving and Chandler, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - TORTS - OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-11-2005 Appealed from: PONTOTOC COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Thomas J. Gardner Disposition: AFTER A BENCH TRIAL, RULING IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT PONTOTOC COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT. Case Number: CV-03-033G |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JANE DOE AND JILL DOE, BOTH MINORS, BY
AND THROUGH THEIR NATURAL MOTHER,
LEGAL GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND, MARY
BROWN; MARY BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND
JIM BROWN |
MATTHEW YARBROUGH HARRIS |
||
| Appellee: | PONTOTOC COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT | RACHEL MARIE PIERCE J. MAX EDWARDS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Negligence - Notice of relationship - Duty to report - Section 97-5-24 - Breach of duty - Supervision and training |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jane Doe and her sister, Jill Doe, both minors, by and through their natural mother, Mary Brown, and step-father, Jim Brown, filed an action against the Pontotoc County School District and Jeremy Wise (a teacher who had a relationship with Jane). Claims against Wise were ultimately dismissed with prejudice, as a settlement agreement was reached with the plaintiffs. The claims remaining against the District included gross negligence in training and supervision of Wise, negligence, and negligence per se. Further, damages claimed included mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and actual damages for counseling sessions and moving to another school district. The court issued a judgment in favor of the Pontotoc County School District. The plaintiffs appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Notice of relationship The plaintiffs argue that the District had adequate notice of the inappropriate relationship between Wise and Jane and thus are liable. An employer will be liable for negligent hiring or retention of his employee when an employee injures a third party if the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s incompetence or unfitness. A plaintiff must prove the defendant had either actual or constructive knowledge of an employee’s incompetence or unfitness before the employer will become liable for the negligent hiring or retention of an employee who injures a third party. From the evidence and testimony in the record, the trial court was correct in finding there was no actual notice to prove the District knew of the affair. The District had one uncorroborated rumor about a possible inappropriate relationship between Wise and Jane which was initiated by the school secretary and told to Carr and the school board member. There was no tangible evidence of the affair until the discarded notes and e-mails were found later that summer. School computers were not used for this correspondence nor were school telephones used for phone calls. All but one incident of the physical contact occurred when Wise and Jane were alone. Furthermore, there was insufficient constructive notice of the inappropriate relationship to claim the District should have known of the affair. Wise had no prior history of wrongdoing with the District and had a good reputation with the principal and the school superintendent, who both knew Wise personally from when he was a student. There is nothing indicative about Wise’s past actions or actions at the time of his employment at the high school which would rise to the level of giving constructive notice to the District of Wise’s transgressions. The record is devoid of any pattern of sexual misconduct by Wise that would be observed by any individual besides Jane. Once the District learned of the extent of Wise’s misconduct, they did not exhibit indifference. The principal testified that if Wise had not resigned he would have been fired. Issue 2: Duty to report The plaintiffs argue that the court erred in finding the District not negligent in failing to report the situation to law enforcement officials under section 97-5-24 once school officials became aware of the relationship. Section 97-5-24 was never mentioned in the complaint, nor was a “duty to report” claim pled below. The statute limits the duty to report to “accusations” which are reported to school authorities and which are reasonably believable. There is no evidence in the record which proves the school’s officials were aware of the inappropriate relationship until after Wise resigned. An unsubstantiated rumor carries significantly less credibility than a formal accusation, and there were no formal accusations in the record. There was no notice of fondling or sexual involvement between Wise and Jane in the rumor–only the possibility of an inappropriate relationship. Even if the District could have been found shirking its duty to report sexual involvement of a teacher with a student, by the time the District had sufficient knowledge to report the behavior, the negligence claim would fail for lack of proximate cause. Issue 3: Breach of duty The plaintiffs argue that the court did not adequately consider Jane’s constitutional rights to be free from sexual harassment and discrimination while attending school. Public schools have the responsibility to use ordinary care and to take reasonable steps to minimize foreseeable risks to students thereby providing a safe school environment. Ordinary care is a factual issue decided by the trial court. The trial court found that the District was unaware of Wise’s inappropriate relationship with Jane until the end of July. Until that time, the District took appropriate action with the information it had–which was to question the teacher and monitor the situation. While it is unfortunate that the relationship was not discovered earlier, the District is not liable for failing to discover it. The District exhibited ordinary, reasonable care towards Jane based on the evidence it had. Issue 4: Supervision and training The plaintiffs argue that the District did not properly train or supervise Wise and took no action once it learned of the illicit relationship. Wise’s supervision and failure of the District to take proper action have already been discussed. In addition, the court’s finding that Wise was adequately trained on this matter and individually chose to violate the school’s expressed policy is supported by the record. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
