Daniels v. Fluette

• Decision Date: 12 April 2013
• Docket Number: No. 2012–53–Appeal.,2012–53–Appeal.
• Citation: 64 A.3d 302
• Parties: Cheryl DANIELS, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Anthony Daniels, a minor v. Zachery FLUETTE et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

64 A.3d 302

Cheryl DANIELS, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of Anthony Daniels, a minor

v.Zachery FLUETTE et al.

No. 2012–53–Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 12, 2013.

Carl P. DeLuca, Esq., Warwick, for Plaintiff.

Faith A. LaSalle, Esq., Providence, for Defendant.

Present: SUTTELL, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, ROBINSON, and INDEGLIA, JJ.

OPINION

Chief Justice SUTTELL, for the Court.

Cheryl Daniels (plaintiff), individually and as mother and next friend of Anthony Daniels, appeals from a Superior Court judgment granting the defendant Bishop Hendricken High School's (school) motion for summary judgment. ¹ The plaintiff argues that the hearing justice erred in holding that the school did not breach its duty to provide a safe learning environment. Specifically, she contends that the school failed to supervise its students and failed to protect its students by using safety glass in a bathroom window. This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not summarily be decided. After considering the parties' written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that cause has not been shown and that this case may be decided without further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

IFacts and Procedural History

The facts underlying this case are not in dispute.² On January 12, 2006, after classes had concluded for the day at Bishop Hendricken High School, Anthony Daniels, a member of the school's hockey team, remained on the premises to work out in the weight room. After leaving the weight room, and while waiting for his mother to pick him up, Daniels spotted his friend Oliver Goudiably. Daniels went over to Goudiably's locker, grabbed his book bag, and ran to the boys' bathroom. Daniels entered a stall and pretended he was going to flush Goudiably's bag down the toilet, announcing that it was going into the drain. Goudiably gave chase and brought in reinforcements, arriving in the boys' bathroom accompanied by Zachery Fluette. Fluette kicked the stall door, which hit Daniels in the head. Fluette then pushed him, causing Daniels to stumble toward a window. Daniels instinctively put up his hands, shattering the glass and causing a laceration to his wrist.

On October 31, 2007, plaintiff filed suit against Fluette, the school, and its agents, alleging negligence. In 2011, the Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the school and Brother Leto. Final judgment was entered and plaintiff timely appealed.

IIStandard of Review

This Court will review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo, “employing the same standards and rules used by the hearing justice.” Great American E & S Insurance Co. v. End Zone Pub & Grill of Narragansett Inc., 45 A.3d 571, 574 (R.I.2012) (quoting Generation Realty, LLC v. Catanzaro, 21 A.3d 253, 258 (R.I.2011)). “We will affirm a lower court's decision only if, after reviewing the admissible evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we conclude that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (quoting Generation Realty, LLC, 21 A.3d at 258). “Moreover, the nonmoving party bears the burden of proving by competent evidence the existence of a disputed issue of material fact and cannot rest upon mere allegations or denials in the pleadings, mere conclusions or mere legal opinions.” Id. (quoting Narragansett Improvement Co. v. Wheeler, 21 A.3d 430, 438 (R.I.2011)).

IIIDiscussion

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the hearing justice erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant because the school had a duty to supervise its students, which plaintiff contends it breached by neither discouraging nor detecting the horseplay in the boys' bathroom. The plaintiff asserts that the level of supervision required is a question of fact that should have been determined by a jury. Further, plaintiff argues that the school had a duty to protect its students from harm and that, because the horseplay in the boys' bathroom was reasonably foreseeable, the school had a duty to install safety glass in the boys' bathroom window.

The defendant argues that, because the incident occurred after school and not at the location of any after-school activity, the school did not have a duty to supervise Daniels. Additionally, defendant asserts that even assuming it had a duty to supervise Daniels, schools cannot be held to be insurers of their students' safety and any liability should be limited to injuries proximately caused by a lack of supervision. The school points out that there had been no complaints about Fluette's conduct and that, therefore, there was no way to foresee this incident. Further, the school notes that Daniels's conduct in initiating the prank was the direct cause of his injury. Finally, defendant argues that because safety glass was not required by the building code in effect at the time the school was constructed and indeed is not required by the present building code, the fact that the glass in the bathroom window was not safety glass is not evidence of a breach of duty. Accordingly, defendant asserts that the hearing justice was correct in granting its motion for summary judgment.

ADuty to Supervise

“It is well settled that to prevail on a claim of negligence ‘a plaintiff must establish a legally cognizable duty owed by a defendant to a plaintiff, a breach of that duty, proximate causation between the conduct and the resulting injury, and the actual loss or damage.’ ” Habershaw v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 42 A.3d 1273, 1276 (R.I.2012) (quoting Holley v. Argonaut Holdings, Inc., 968 A.2d 271, 274 (R.I.2009)). The plaintiff argues that defendant's duty is established both by G.L.1956 § 16–2–17 and by the school's handbook.

Section 16–2–17(a) states that students have “a right to attend * * * a school which is safe and secure, and which is conducive to learning, and which is free from the threat, actual or implied, of physical harm by a disruptive student.” However, we consider the argument based on § 16–2–17 to be meritless—since that statute clearly does not relate to non-public schools such as Bishop Hendricken High School.

The Bishop Hendricken Student Handbook provides that:

“Designated supervisors of extracurricular activities are on duty for necessary times before, during, and after their respective activities.

“Parents can expect the official supervision of students during the school day to begin at 7:15 AM until 4:30 PM. The time of official supervision of students during extracurricular activities begins at the moment when the first student arrives for the activity until such time as all students have departed. After school, students are limited to the cafeteria and the foyer area * * *. Outside these times of official supervision, students who are on campus must observe policies, regulations and procedures governing our school community.

“Parents should be aware that the school will not be responsible for students on campus outside times of official supervision.”

Daniels stated that he remained on campus to work out, as part of the school's hockey program, and that, after working out, was on his way to the cafeteria when he ran into Goudiably. The evidence does not indicate whether the workout was a formal extracurricular activity as opposed to an individual pursuit tangentially linked to the hockey team. The questions of whether Daniels was participating in an extracurricular activity, and whether that activity had ended are questions of material fact. However, the hearing justice assumed without deciding that a duty existed. This is consistent with the summary judgment standard of viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, here, plaintiff. See Great American E & S Insurance Co., 45 A.3d at 574. For purposes of our review, this Court will likewise assume without deciding that a duty existed.

Determining whether the school breached its duty by failing to adequately supervise the boys at the time of the incident requires us to determine the extent of supervision necessary in a high school setting. This Court addressed this issue in Medeiros v. Sitrin, 984 A.2d 620, 626–27 (R.I.2009).³ In that case, a high school student was arriving late to class when he was injured by two other students in an altercation that took place in a lab area just outside of the classroom. Id. at 623. The injured student filed suit against the teacher and the city, alleging that the teacher failed to adequately supervise “foreseeably late students who would have to travel through the lab to reach the classroom.” Id. at 624. However, because the plaintiff failed to identify “a specific act or omission * * * that indicated a deviation from the proper standard of care,” we held that the defendants did not breach their supervisory duties. Id. at 626 (quoting Morales v. Town of Johnston, 895 A.2d 721, 732 (R.I.2006)). We noted that “even the case law from other jurisdictions * * * cite[d] to support the proposed standard of care for teachers in supervising their students does not contemplate that a teacher's physical absence from a student is necessarily a breach of the duty to supervise.” Id. at 627.

Here, plaintiff offers no specific act or omission by defendant other than the fact that no teacher or administrator was present to discourage or detect the horseplay. Absent a specific act or omission, we are reluctant to impose upon schools a standard that would require them to post monitors at each bathroom during after-school hours. We note that other jurisdictions have held that “schools are not the insurers of the safety of their students, ‘perfection in supervision’ is not required, and schools are not liable for ‘every thoughtless or careless act by which one pupil may injure...