Schultz v. FOSTER-GLOCESTER SCH. DIST.

• Decision Date: 12 July 2000
• Docket Number: No. 98-564-Appeal.,98-564-Appeal.
• Parties: Robert SCHULTZ, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Patricia M. Schultz, a minor v. FOSTER-GLOCESTER REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

755 A.2d 153

Robert SCHULTZ, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Patricia M. Schultz, a minor v. FOSTER-GLOCESTER REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.

No. 98-564-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 12, 2000.

Present WEISBERGER, C.J., LEDERBERG, BOURCIER, FLANDERS, and GOLDBERG, JJ.

James P. Marusak, Providence, for Plaintiff.

Mark J. Faria, Raymond A. Lafazia, Jeanne E. Lafazia, Kevin J. Holley, Providence, for Defendant.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This case came before the Court on the appeal of plaintiff, Robert Schultz (Schultz or plaintiff), individually and as parent and next friend of Patricia M. Schultz, from a Superior Court judgment entered in favor of defendant, Foster-Glocester Regional School District (Foster-Glocester or defendant), following defendant's motion for summary judgment. Following a conference before a single justice of this Court, the parties were directed to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After hearing the arguments of counsel and examining the memoranda submitted, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown. Therefore, we shall decide the issues raised by the parties at this time.

On January 7, 1993, plaintiff's daughter, Patricia Schultz (Patricia), was injured during a cheerleading practice while she was a student at the Ponaganset Middle School. Patricia, who was fourteen years old at the time of the accident, said that during cheerleading practice, a new maneuvercalled a "basket toss" was introduced. It required that she be thrown upward into the air by two other cheerleaders and, after extending both her hands and feet, that she land in the interlocked hands of those two cheerleaders. Unfortunately, the maneuver did not go according to plan. Patricia said that she was tossed improperly and fell when she landed, missing the safety mat and injuring her elbow. Patricia said she went to the school nurse who, after manipulating the injured elbow, sent her back to practice. According to Patricia, she then continued to participate in practice, performing what she described as painful physical activities until she stopped and went home. Patricia, in her answers to interrogatories, stated that as a result of her fall, she suffered a 100 percent displaced radia head fracture of her right elbow.

On December 27, 1996, plaintiff filed suit, alleging that Foster-Glocester was negligent in failing to properly train, supervise, instruct, provide proper equipment and provide proper post-injury treatment for Patricia during and after cheerleading practice. On March 19, 1998, Foster-Glocester filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the public-duty doctrine was a bar to recovery. On June 2, 1998, the trial justice granted the motion, finding that Patricia was not an identifiable person to whom the school district owed a special duty and that no exceptions to the public-duty doctrine were applicable in this case. On June 5, 1998, plaintiff filed this timely appeal.

On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial justice erred by determining that the public-duty doctrine applied to bar plaintiff's claim and that Foster-Glocester owed no special duty to plaintiff. Also, plaintiff contended that the trial justice erred in finding that none of the exceptions to the public-duty doctrine applied to her claim. Foster-Glocester asserted that the public-duty doctrine shielded it from liability, and that if the doctrine did not apply, the coach enjoyed immunity pursuant to G.L.1956 § 9-1-48.¹

"The public duty doctrine shields the state and its political subdivisions from tort liability arising out of discretionary governmental actions that by their nature are not ordinarily performed by private persons." Haley v. Town of Lincoln, 611 A.2d 845, 849 (R.I.1992) (citing Bierman v. Shookster, 590 A.2d 402, 403 (R.I.1991)). We have consistently held that this immunity enjoyed by state and municipal governments is applicable to governmental functions, except in three situations: "(1) when the governmental entity owes a `special duty' to the plaintiff, (2) when the alleged act or omission on the part of the governmental entity was egregious, or (3) when the governmental entity engaged in activities normally undertaken by private individuals or corporations." Kuzniar v. Keach, 709 A.2d 1050, 1053 (R.I.1998) (citing Quality Court Condominium Association v. Quality Hill Development Corp., 641 A.2d 746, 750 (...