Fenrich v. Blake Sch.
| Decision Date | 21 November 2018 |
| Docket Number | A17-0063 |
| Citation | 920 N.W.2d 195 |
| Parties | JeanAnn FENRICH, individually, and as trustee for the heirs of Gary Fenrich, Appellant, v. THE BLAKE SCHOOL, et. al., Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Kenneth R. White, Law Office of Kenneth R. White, P.C., Mankato, Minnesota; and
Jennifer L. Thon, Jones Law Office, Mankato, Minnesota, for appellant.
Nicole R. Weinand, Law Office of Thomas P. Stilp, Golden Valley, Minnesota, for respondents.
A 16-year-old high-school student caused a fatal accident while driving his cross-country teammates and a volunteer coach to an extracurricular athletic competition in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Gary Fenrich was killed and his wife, appellant JeanAnn Fenrich, was severely injured. She brought a negligence action against respondent The Blake School ("the school"). The district court granted the school’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that, as a matter of law, the school did not owe a duty of care to members of the general public. The court of appeals affirmed, but on a different ground, holding that the school’s conduct did not create a foreseeable risk of injury to a foreseeable plaintiff. Because summary judgment was not proper in the circumstances of this case, we reverse the court of appeals.
On November 12, 2011, shortly before 11:00 a.m., Gary Fenrich was driving northbound on Minnesota Highway 15 in Watonwan County. His wife, JeanAnn Fenrich, was in the front seat on the passenger side. An oncoming car crossed over the centerline and collided with the Fenrichs. Gary was killed and JeanAnn suffered serious injuries.
The car that crossed the centerline was driven by T.M., a 16-year-old boy. T.M. was a member of the school’s cross-country team. He was driving himself, two other members of the team, and the team’s volunteer coach as part of a team trip to Sioux Falls.
The team had participated in the interscholastic Minnesota State High School League ("the League") season, which had just ended. But T.M. and his teammates were going to the Nike Cross Nationals Heartland Regional meet in Sioux Falls. The Nike meet was not a League-sponsored event and, because it occurred after the League’s official season had ended, the team’s coaches were not allowed to help prepare the team for it. Nevertheless, both the head coach and the assistant coach assisted the team as the Nike meet approached.
The Nike meet was listed on the team’s official schedule, which was posted on the team website.1 At least four posts were made on the website referencing the upcoming Nike meet. For example, during the League season, the head coach sent an email to the team members and parents stating:
Team members were instructed to tell the coaches in writing if they were planning to attend the Nike meet. Fourteen members of the team signed up, and the assistant coach paid the team’s $300 bulk meet-participation fee.
Because the official League season had ended, and in an effort to comply with League rules, the assistant coach arranged for a volunteer coach—a recent graduate of the school—to run practices the week before the Nike meet. The assistant coach emailed the team: "All practices are run by Captains, (and [the volunteer coach] ) this week."
Although the team members were nominally responsible for arranging their own lodging and transportation to the Nike meet, the team’s coaches helped coordinate the arrangements. On November 7, the assistant coach sent out the following email to a team parent:
Two days later, the coaches received an email from T.M.’s mother that read, in relevant part:
[T.M.], his dad and I just finished a conversation about transportation for the race this weekend. It sounds like [T.M.] (and the boys) would like to have a caravan down and back with you. We are very comfortable with [T.M.’s] driving skills and he’s legal now to have passengers, and we are fine with him taking our car. Given the long distance though, we would like to know that he is following you, and won’t be venturing to Sioux Falls and back without an adult at least in [the] rear view mirro[r]s. All we would need is you to confirm that is the plan .... Please know that [T.M.’s father] is willing to drive as well, if you would prefer that, but we understand also that ‘Coach plus kids’ sounds like a more fun venture for [T.M.] and the boy team runners ....
The assistant coach called the head coach to ask whether he was comfortable with T.M. driving. The head coach replied that he did not get involved with those decisions. The assistant coach then replied to the email stating: "That works, we will drive in a caravan at a safe speed!"
On the morning of November 12, the students met at the assistant coach’s house in Chanhassen for the two-car "caravan" to Sioux Falls. The assistant coach estimated that they would be on the road for about five hours. The majority of the team rode with the assistant coach, including the assistant coach’s own son.
Three people rode with T.M.: two students and the volunteer coach, who was located in the back seat behind T.M. Although T.M.’s mother stated that T.M. could legally drive multiple passengers, this assertion is not supported by the record. T.M. obtained his driver’s license on June 17, 2011, and all three of his passengers, including the volunteer coach, were under the age of 20. See Minn. Stat. § 171.055, subd. 2(c) (2016) ().
Before departing, the assistant coach gave no driving instructions to either T.M. or the volunteer coach. Nor did the volunteer coach give T.M. any instructions.
T.M. followed the assistant coach’s car. During a brief stop outside of Mankato, the assistant coach reminded T.M. to "make sure we keep it safe and keep rolling." He provided no specific instructions as to how "we keep it safe." Thereafter, the vehicles turned southbound onto Highway 15, a two-lane highway.
As the vehicles approached Lewisville, in Watonwan County, the volunteer coach was in the back seat using his phone. According to the volunteer coach, T.M. was probably distracted by his own phone.2 As a result, T.M. swerved over the centerline of the highway, into oncoming traffic, and his car collided with the Fenrichs’ vehicle. JeanAnn was severely injured, and Gary was killed.
After the accident, police interviewed the assistant coach and the volunteer coach. The volunteer coach described himself as "an assistant coach with the Blake Cross Country Team" and told police that "we all drove down as a team." The assistant coach told police that he had already talked to the school and told them that any future trips would need to be by bus. He also said:
In November 2014, Fenrich, in her individual capacity and as her husband’s trustee, brought an action in Watonwan County against the school, the head coach, the assistant coach, and the volunteer coach. She pleaded claims of wrongful death, negligence, and negligence per se against all defendants, and also asserted negligent supervision and vicarious liability claims against the school.
In April 2015, the district court dismissed Fenrich’s claim of negligence per se. The court also dismissed all claims against the head coach and assistant coach, concluding that the applicable statute of limitations had expired.
In May 2016, the school and the volunteer coach each moved for summary judgment, arguing that they owed no legal duty to members of the general public and that T.M. was not acting as an agent of the school or the volunteer coach. In August 2016, the district court denied the motion because (1) "a reasonable person [could] draw a conclusion that The Blake School assumed control and supervision over the cross country team’s transportation to and from and participation in the Nike Meet," and (2) there were sufficient facts "for a reasonable person to find that [T.M.] was acting as an agent of the school and/or [the volunteer coach]."
In October 2016, the district court issued an order dismissing Fenrich’s claims of negligence and negligent supervision, concluding that, although the school may have owed a duty to its students, neither the school nor its volunteer coach owed any duty of care to non-student third parties such as Fenrich. The court observed that Fenrich’s only remaining claim was for wrongful death on a vicarious liability theory.
In November 2016, following the school’s request for reconsideration, the district court dismissed the volunteer coach from the lawsuit because no direct claims remained against him. The district court also dismissed Fenrich’s vicarious liability claim because a June 2014 settlement agreement between Fenrich and T.M.’s family (and insurers) released T.M., T.M.’s father, and their principals from all claims. With no claims remaining, final judgment was entered.
Fenrich appealed, arguing that the district court erred by determining as a matter of law that the school owed no duty of care. The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, but on different grounds. The court first concluded that "a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maethner v. Someplace Safe, Inc.
...the level of care that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar circumstances." Fenrich v. The Blake School , 920 N.W.2d 195, 201 (Minn. 2018) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Disputes over whether a breach of a duty of care occurred are t......
-
Staub v. Myrtle Lake Resort, LLC
...the summary judgment standard when resolving a duty of care issue in a professional negligence case); Fenrich v. The Blake School , 920 N.W.2d 195, 206–07 (Minn. 2018) (highlighting the significance of procedural posture when deciding "a close call" on an appeal from a grant of summary judg......
-
Abel v. Abbott Nw. Hosp., A19-0461
...however, where "a negligent defendant may be held liable to a plaintiff for harm caused by a third party." Fenrich v. Blake School , 920 N.W.2d 195, 202 (Minn. 2018). One of these instances occurs "when there is a special relationship between a plaintiff and a defendant and the harm ... is ......
-
Doe v. Indep. Sch. Dist. 31
..."a person does not owe a duty of care to another . . . if the harm is caused by a third party's conduct." Fenrich v. The Blake Sch., 920 N.W.2d 195, 202 (Minn. 2018) (citing Doe 169, 845 N.W.2d at 177-78)). There are two exceptions to this rule. Id. The first is "when there is a special rel......