Hodge v. Balt. City Bd. of Sch. Comm'rs
| Decision Date | 07 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 0441,0441 |
| Parties | KIMORA HODGE v. BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104. K.H., appellant, by and through her mother, sued the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners ("BCBSC"), appellee, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, alleging negligence for injuries she received when another student, M.P., threw a chair. Appellant contends on appeal that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of BCBSC.
For the reasons set forth below, we agree, and therefore, we shall reverse the judgment of the circuit court.
On September 27, 2016, K.H. was in Ms. Joanne Young's third-grade class at Gwynns Falls Elementary School. K.H. testified at her deposition that two students, M.P. and J.S., got into an altercation over a pencil. M.P. "got real mad over [the] pencil," and he started "yelling and stuff." Ms. Young told M.P. and J.S. to stop, and she got J.S. out of the classroom. M.P. then "started throwing stuff," i.e., desks and chairs. Ms. Young instructed the other students to leave the classroom. K.H. was the last student to leave the classroom. She was passing M.P. as she was "rushing out to get to the door," and M.P. threw the chair, which hit her in the neck. She stated that K.H. said that M.P. was having a temper tantrum, but she had never seen him do that before.
K.H. came out of the classroom crying, and she was sent to the school nurse. She then went to an urgent care facility.
On May 10, 2019, K.H., by and through her mother, Rosetta Hodge, filed a negligence lawsuit against BCBSC. The complaint alleged that Ms. Young left the classroom unattended, and during that time, a child threw three chairs, one of which injured K.H. The complaint alleged negligence by the teacher in failing "to leave proper supervision in the room when she left," further asserting that she "should have quickly reentered the room on the sound of the first chair."
On February 18, 2020, counsel deposed S.H., another student in K.H.'s class. S.H. described the classroom as small, with computers in the back row and Ms. Young's desk in the front of the room. Consistent with K.H.'s deposition testimony, S.H. testified that M.P. did not intentionally strike K.H. with the chair. She stated: "[M.P.] didn't really mean to hurt [K.H.]," but K.H. "just happened to be in the way when [M.P.] was throwing chairs." S.H. stated that M.P. had never thrown furniture prior to September 27, 2016, and although he was known to act out, he had never thrown a temper tantrum prior to the incident. S.H. also testified that Ms. Young first tried to break up the altercation, but when M.P. began throwing chairs, Ms. Young tried to get all students out of the classroom. The students were running and pushing each other to get out, and K.H. went out last.
S.H. said that, when the argument first started, the students were doing classwork and Ms. Young was near the projector. She did not remember if Ms. Young was in the hallway when M.P. threw the chair that hit K.H.
It further stated that "the event that transpired on September 27, 2016, i.e., the tossed chair . . . bouncing off the classroom floor and coming into contact with [K.H.], was an unpredictable instantaneous event that occurred within seconds without any time for dialogue between the teacher Ms. Young and [K.H.], the student."
On March 24, 2020, following discovery, BCBSC filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. BCBSC contended in its memorandum in support of its motion that "[t]he facts are undisputed that [M.P] did not intentionally strike" K.H. with the chair, there was "no factual dispute that Ms. Joanne Young was present in the classroom at the time [M.P.] became upset and that she took active measures to control her classroom in a manner consistent with BCBSC protocols." BCBSC argued that, in light of these undisputed facts, it could not be held "legally liable for an unpredictable, spontaneous, and accidental injury," and it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
With respect to the elements of a negligence claim, BCBSC asserted that there was no evidence of a breach of duty to K.H. because Ms. Young acted consistently with BCBSC protocols. It further argued that M.P.'s actions were not foreseeable, and the undisputed facts showed that Ms. Young's actions were not the proximate cause of K.H.'s injury,which was caused by an "intervening and wholly unforeseen force," i.e., M.P.'s spontaneous and unpredictable throwing of the chair.
On April 7, 2020, K.H. filed an opposition to BCBSC's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Opposition"), stating that there were several issues of material fact in dispute, and BCBSC was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2 K.H. argued that BCBSC had a duty to exercise care for the safety of all students, and given the testimony that Ms. Young was in the doorway talking with another staff member, "they should have had at least one staff member enter the classroom to protect the students in the room while another could have handled the evacuation of the room."
On April 14, 2020, BCBSC filed a reply to K.H.'s Opposition ("Reply"). It argued that K.H. had "failed to demonstrate a dispute of material fact" and failed to produce admissible evidence to support a finding that Ms. Young was negligent and/or that she, and not M.P., was the proximate cause of K.H.'s injuries.
On May 15, 2020, the court held a hearing on BCBSC's Motion for Summary Judgment. Counsel for BCBSC argued that there were no material facts in dispute and it was entitled to summary judgment. It stated that, despite the inability to foresee that the disturbance would occur, K.H. had admitted that "Ms. Young took several steps to protect the students in her classroom," including trying to evacuate them from the room. Whenasked by the court where Ms. Young was during the incident, counsel for BCBSC asserted that "Ms. Young was present and working to actually resolve the issue." The court stated its understanding that it was "undisputed that [Ms. Young] was standing in the doorway," and counsel replied: "[A]t minimum, Ms. Young was in the doorway."
Counsel for K.H. stated that Ms. Young "was outside the room in the doorway talking to another teacher." He disputed BCBSC's argument that Ms. Young's location was immaterial to the issue of negligence, arguing that a "reasonable trier of fact" could find that Ms. Young "should not have been in a position where she is outside the classroom," and "[h]ad Ms. Young been in a position where there was not a child left in the classroom, essentially with [M.P.] between her and the child, she would have been able to supervise that and protect that child." Counsel stated that a reasonable trier of fact could find that one of the adults should have gone in the classroom to protect the students from the child throwing chairs. "It is foreseeable here when you have a dispute that is obviously bad enough that the teacher feels the need to remove the children from the classroom."
The court subsequently issued a Memorandum Order granting BCBSC's motion for summary judgment. The court stated that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to K.H., Ms. Young was standing in the doorway of the classroom "speaking with another person when a student became upset over a pencil and began to throw tables and chairs." Mr. Young was "able to respond," and she "began assisting other students out of the classroom." The court found that Ms. Young's location in the doorway was not the cause of K.H.'s injuries, stating:
There is no evidence contained in the record indicating that the student had acted in such a manner previously. Thus, there was no reason for Ms. Young to foresee that this student would begin to throw tables and chairs, which would accidently hit [K.H.] Teachers are not strictly accountable as insurers for the safety of their students. Segerman [v. Jones], 256 Md. [109,] 124-25 [(1969)]. The harm that came to [K.H.] was the result of unforeseen acts of another student, a harm to which could not have been reasonably anticipated by Ms. Young. Accordingly, the [c]ourt will grant summary judgment in favor of BCBSC.
This appeal followed.
Maryland Rule 2-501(f) provides that a court may grant summary judgment "if the motion and response show that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the party in whose favor judgment is entered is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." We review the circuit court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Six Flags Am., L.P. v. Gonzalez-Perdomo, 248 Md. App. 569, 580 (2020), cert. denied, ___Md.___ (2021). "We conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether a genuine dispute of material fact exists and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Davis v. Regency Lane, LLC, 249 Md. App. 187, 203 (2021) (quoting Md. Cas. Co. v. Blackstone Intern. Ltd., 442 Md. 685, 694 (2015)). "We review the record in the light...
To continue reading
Request your trial