ARCHBISHOP CARROLL HIGH SCHOOL v. Maynoldi

• Decision Date: 14 April 2010
• Docket Number: No. 3D08-1648.,3D08-1648.
• Citation: 30 So.3d 533
• Parties: ARCHBISHOP COLEMAN F. CARROLL HIGH SCHOOL, INC., etc., Archdiocese of Miami, Inc., etc., Archdiocese of Miami through Archbishop John Favolora, United National Insurance Company and The National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Jose Luis MAYNOLDI and Olga Maynoldi, individually, and as legal guardians of Gabriel Maynoldi, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

30 So.3d 533

ARCHBISHOP COLEMAN F. CARROLL HIGH SCHOOL, INC., etc., Archdiocese of Miami, Inc., etc., Archdiocese of Miami through Archbishop John Favolora, United National Insurance Company and The National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Jose Luis MAYNOLDI and Olga Maynoldi, individually, and as legal guardians of Gabriel Maynoldi, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. 3D08-1648.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

February 10, 2010.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 14, 2010.

Gaebe, Mullen, Antonelli, Esco & Dimatteo, and Michael A. Mullen, Benjamin M. Esco and Anne C. Sullivan, Coral Gables; Carlton Fields, and Wendy F. Lumish, Miami, Alina Alonso and Andrew D. Manko, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Deehl & Carlson, and David L. Deehl, Michele K. Feinzig, and Joanne R. Telischi, Coral Gables, for appellees.

Carr Allison, and Harold R. Mardenborough, Jr., as Amicus Curiae, for appellants.

Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and SUAREZ and SALTER, JJ.

SALTER, J.

In this appeal and cross-appeal we review a parochial high school's alleged liability for the tragic results of a 17-year-old student's consumption of alcohol at, and operation of an automobile after, an end-of-school-year party at a private residence. Despite three novel circumstances presented by the trial record, we conclude again that:

At some point, we believe that a school's obligation of reasonable supervision must come to an end and the parent or guardian's duty of supervision must resume. That logical point, we think, should be when the student leaves the school's premises during non-school hours and is no longer involved in school-related activities.¹

Based on this well-settled principle and other points detailed in this opinion, we reverse the verdict and amended final judgment below, and we direct the entry of a judgment in favor of the appellants. We review the factual record in the light most favorable to the appellees, and then consider in turn these legal issues:

1. Was the after-school event school sponsored or school related?

2. Did the principal's visit to the front of the private residence during the party, or the school's handbook regarding such parties, create a duty on the part of the school pursuant to the undertaker's doctrine?

3. Did the trial court correctly interpret section 768.36, Florida Statutes (2001), "alcohol or drug defense," as applied to the facts of this case?

4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in sustaining an objection to the admissibility of records regarding the injured student's (the driver's) prior treatment for alcohol dependence, including an admission that a few months before the accident the eleventh-grade student had consumed 24 beers in 24 hours?

Our analysis and conclusions on these issues render moot a fifth argument by the school regarding the appellees' counsel's alleged misconduct during the course of the trial. A sixth issue raised by the school, the entitlement of the appellees to attorney's fees and costs (whether as prevailing parties or "under the doctrine of `equitable conduct' as an appropriate sanction"), is not ripe for our review on this record. The trial court reserved jurisdiction to make a limited award of attorney's fees and costs incurred by the appellees' counsel as a consequence of the school's delay in producing certain original documents and notes.² At such time, if any, as the appellees move for and obtain a judgment in the trial court fixing the amount of such an award and establishing how any fees awarded are attributable to the alleged delay in production of the documents, that issue will become ripe for appeal.

In the cross-appeal, Gabriel Maynoldi (the tragically-injured high school student) and his parents assert as error the trial court's denial of a motion to strike the school's pleadings; the court's failure to direct a verdict precluding any percentage of comparative negligence on the part of the parents; the court's allowance of a $1.1 million setoff based on the separate settlement with the school principal; and the denial of a motion for additur for $537,009 in past services provided Gabriel by his parents. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court regarding the first of these issues in the cross-appeal, and our decision in the main appeal renders moot the remaining issues.

I. Background

A. The "Praty" Invitation

June 12, 2001, was the next-to-last day of school at the high school. During the day, the school administration became aware that various students had received copies of a card inviting them to an end-of-year party the following day at a residence several miles away from the school. Although the card itself carried a more unusual font and variations in the size of various words, the text read:

A.M.L.P.P.

ABC ONLY! ABC ONLY!

WE PROMISED IT SINCE THE BEGINNING

OF THE YEAR.....NOW ITS HERE .... COME

END THE SCHOOL YEAR THE RIGHT WAY!

PLACE: Residence Address

TIME: 1:00 P.M. TILL IT ENDS

RIGHT AFTER SCHOOL*BRING YOUR BATHING

SUITS...$5.00 DOLLAS EVER-1, EXCEPT COMPS

FOR INFO CALL: Telephone Numbers

SPECIAL THANKS TO ANDY & RUDY...SORRY BOUT THA PIC

PRATY 6

POOL PRATY XXX BIKINI CONTEST XXX ALL ACCESS

Testimony at trial disclosed that "ABC" referred to Archbishop Carroll School; the residence address was that of two students at the school; the two telephone numbers were private numbers for those two students; the "Praty" was to begin an hour after students taking final exams were to be dismissed for the year from the school property (June 13, 2001); and "6" was a reference to prior student-organized, off-school premises "praties." The cards were not prepared or distributed by the school, its faculty, or administration. Counsel for the appellees reported to the trial judge that "A.M.L.P.P." was an extremely crude Spanish-language sexual reference, but there was no evidence that this reference was known by the school.

The testimony and documentary evidence at trial also included a smaller "COMPPASS" (apparently, a free pass to the "praty") also bearing the acronym "A.M.L.P.P.," "ABC ONLY!" and "POOL PRATY." On some of the invitations or passes, a bottle of liquor was faintly visible in the background.

B. The "Skit"—"Busting a Party!"

On the morning before the party, the school principal had the two students (brothers) at whose home the party was to take place brought into his office so he could question them. He testified that the students told him that that their parents would be at the party as chaperones.

The principal and school administrative staff also read a "skit" over the school public address system that morning. The principal composed the script, entitled "Busting a Party!" He testified that the skit was a parody intended to let students know that the administration had become aware of the party and might put a damper on it. The complete script (including typographical errors), an exhibit introduced into evidence at trial by the appellees, was:

BUSTING A PARTY!

Principal: Mr. Staff 1. Are you going to the party?

Staff 1: What party?

Principal: Come on, Staff 1, get with it! You know that there is only one party happening this afternoon!

Staff 1: Oh yes, I know! THAT Party! The ABC Party!

Staff 2: Yes, that's the one! It's going to be really cool! Party! Party!

Staff 1: Staff 2, are you planning to be there?

Staff 2: I most certainly am! I wouldn't want to miss it for the world.

Staff 3: I'll be there.

Principal: You mean you plan to be there all of the party?

Staff 2: Well, most of it! Did you guys get your bathing suits?

Staff 1: Yes, I have one in the car.

Principal: Me too. I can hardly wait. I'm gonna have football coach bring Ammo and Lisa too!

Staff 1: Who is Ammo and Lisa!

Principal: Ammo is the coach's retired police dog. You know, the one that doesn't like people! And Lisa is the dog that does body drug searches! You remember, the one that was at the bus when we took the juniors to Islands of Adventure!

Staff 1: Oh yeah, now I remember. Gee, if they are there, this party could turn out to be a real bummer! Sounds like this might not be a real fun party after all!

Staff 3: Really bad downer!

Principal: Oh come on! We'll really enjoy it! Wonder why it says $5 for ever one, except COPS! Does that mean the police will get in free?

Staff 1: No, they meant COMPS. I guess that means us. Ha! Ha!

Staff 2: I think we should invite the rest of the faculty! The invitation does say ABC ONLY! ABC ONLY! I think the faculty would enjoy this!

Staff 4: Did someone say something about an ABC party? I'll be there!

Staff 2: If you students think we are kidding about going to this party, your are mistaken. We really do plan to go and see what is happening! If anything looks strange, we'll have the necessary backup to make it un-happen real quick!

All: We're gonna party! We're gonna party! PARTY! PARTY!

C. Dismissal; the Party; and the Principal's Visit

School was dismissed for the year following the second of two final exam periods, at 12:20 p.m. Students began to arrive at the home where the party was to take place after 1:00 or 1:30 p.m. The mother of the "hosting" students arrived at the home some time between 1:45 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., but went to her room by the pool and stayed there with the blinds drawn. She testified that after she was there 30 to 45 minutes, she called her husband to come home. Neither parent called the police or attempted to stop the party prior to the time Gabriel Maynoldi and his classmate drove away from the party.

Alcohol was consumed in the pool area at the back of the house and in cars. Gabriel and his classmate, though minors, had obtained two twelve-packs of beer and a vodka drink from a convenience store and arrived at the party between 2:00 and 2:30 p.m. Gabriel and the classmate drank in Gabriel's car for a half-hour to an hour, and then went into the party with whatever alcoholic drinks remained.

At about 4:00 p.m., the principal and a...