Jackson v. First Student, Inc.

• Docket Number: ED111487
• Decision Date: 25 June 2024
• Citation: Jackson v. First Student, Inc., ED111487 (Mo. App. Jun 25, 2024)
• Parties: DYLAN JACKSON, BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, ROSE JACKSON, Respondent, v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., Appellant, and TOMIKA L. RICHARDSON, Defendant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

1

DYLAN JACKSON, BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, ROSE JACKSON, Respondent, v. FIRST STUDENT, INC., Appellant, and TOMIKA L. RICHARDSON, Defendant.

No. ED111487

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, First Division

June 25, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. LouisHonorable Rex M. Burlison

Philip M. Hess, Judge

Introduction

First Student, Inc. appeals the circuit court's judgment entered after a jury returned a verdict against it and in favor of D.J. ("Child"), by and through his next friend, R.J. ("Mother"), after Child was struck by a passing car after unloading from a school bus operated by Tomika Richardson("Richardson") on behalf of First Student (collectively, "Defendants").First Student raises four points on appeal arguing the circuit court erred in overruling its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict("JNOV").In Point I, First Student argues it was entitled to JNOV because it complied with its only legal duty to Child, which was to drop him off at a reasonably safe place, and the McGinnis doctrine precluded any additional liability.^[1] In Point II, First Student argues it was entitled to JNOV because the jury was precluded from determining additional, independent theories of negligence under the McHaffie rule when First Student admitted Richardson was acting within the course and scope of her employment.^[2] In Point III, First Student argues it was entitled to JNOV because the verdict director improperly instructed the jury to determine purely evidentiary details while omitting the ultimate issue of whether Richardson dropped off Child at a reasonably safe place.In Point IV First Student argues it was entitled to JNOV because the passing car driver's conduct was an intervening cause breaking the causal connection between Child's injuries and First Student's negligence.

Because First Student's duty to Child arose from the bus contract, by its own conduct, and its requirement to exercise due care to avoid foreseeable injury, and because the record supports breach, causation, and injury, Child made a submissible case establishing negligence as submitted in Jury InstructionNo. 8.Thus, the circuit court did not err in overruling First Student's JNOV motion and Point III is denied.Because the passing car driver's conduct is not an intervening cause breaking the causal connection between Child's injuries and First Student's negligence, the circuit court did not err in overruling First Student's JNOV motion.Point IV is denied.Because neither the McGinnis doctrine nor the McHaffie rule apply under these circumstances, the circuit court did not err in overruling First Student's JNOV motion.Points I and II are denied.

The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.

Factual and Procedural History

First Student Transportation Services

KIPP St. Louis ("KIPP") operates charter schools in the St. Louis area.KIPP solicited requests for proposal ("RFP") and contracted with First Student, which transports approximately five million students throughout the country each day, to provide school bus transportation for its students ("bus contract").The bus contract states KIPP's RFP, First Student's proposal, and the bus contract govern the parties' relationship.KIPP's RFP provides, "The safety of our students is our primary priority," and directs First Student to adhere to "[a]ll applicable laws, local school district policies and regulations."

KIPP's RFP requires First Student to be "responsible for implementing and administering a comprehensive safety plan," including "continuing on-the-road training and classroom training for all drivers ...."First Student's "Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Training Program

Participant Study Guide" ("training manual") discusses "danger zones."First Student's training manual states, "Danger zones are areas outside the bus where children are in the most danger of being hit, either by another vehicle or their own bus."The training manual explicitly warns, "the area to the left of the bus is always considered dangerous because of passing cars."(Emphasis added.)The training manual contains a diagram of a school bus with the left side of the bus labeled "Danger From Passing Cars."A copy of that diagram, set out below, was in evidence before the jury.

(Image Omitted)

The bus contract states First Student "shall be primarily responsible for planning all routes, stops and schedules in coordination with, and based upon, [KIPP] specifications."(Emphasis added.)First Student must use a software system when creating routes and generating stops.Any "stop location and/or time changes" must be submitted in writing.First Student must consult with KIPP "as to stops or portions of routes that [First Student] considers to be a safety concern due to traffic patterns or configurations."If First Student believes a "stop or route presents an unacceptable safety risk to [First Student's] property or students, [First Student] may reject the stop or route portion and provide [KIPP] with alternative designations by written notice."KIPP's RFP further requires First Student to provide a "[m]ethodology to insure [sic] drivers have a working knowledge of the routes and metropolitan St. Louis area" and "ensure that each driver will have an updated route and/or student listing prior to making any run."(Emphasis added.)

Child Sustains Injuries

In October 2019, Child was a nine-year-old fourth-grade student attending a KIPP elementary school.Before the 2019-2020 school year began, Mother contacted First Student to request Child's school bus stop be moved closer to their residence, which was on Lalite Avenue, west of Goodfellow Boulevard.First Student referred Mother to KIPP to have the school bus stop changed.Mother contacted KIPP and received updated school bus stop information accommodating her request.Child's designated school bus stop was "GOODFELLOW BLVD & LALITE AVE (NW CRNR)" indicating the northwest corner of that intersection.Once Child alighted the school bus, he proceeded west on Lalite to his residence without having to cross Goodfellow, which was a busier street than Lalite.The updated ten-page computerized route sheet First Student prepared contained turn-by-turn driving instructions for both the morning and afternoon runs of Child's school bus route.For the afternoon run, First Student's route sheet directed its school bus drivers when reaching the southeast corner of Goodfellow and Lalite to make a series of turns so Child could be dropped off at the northwest corner of Goodfellow and Lalite.Starting at the school bus stop before Child's at the intersection of Lillian Avenue and Mimika Avenue, the directions on the route sheet reads:

Turn Right on LILLIAN AVE

Turn Right on GOODFELLOW BLVD

Turn Left on LALITE AVE Turn Right on WILBORN DR OD

Turn Right on GARESCHE AVE

Turn Right on GOODFELLOW BLVD

4:55 GOODFELLOW BLVD & LALITE AVE (NW CRNR)

First Student's route sheet repeated this pattern of bypassing a southeast corner and making a series of turns to drop off four other students off at a northwest corner of Goodfellow during the afternoon run of Child's route.Beginning on the first day of school in August until October 22, 2019, First Student picked up and dropped off Child at the northwest corner of Goodfellow and Lalite.

On October 23, 2019, First Student assigned Richardson as the substitute driver for Child's afternoon school bus route.Richardson had not driven Child's route before that day.First Student did not provide its updated software-generated route sheet with turn-by-turn directions to Richardson before driving the route.Instead, Richardson was given a handwritten list of intersections along the route.A copy of that list, set out below, was in evidence before the jury:

(Image Omitted)

On the afternoon run, Richardson stopped the school bus at the southeast corner of Goodfellow and Lalite and had Child alight, which required Child to cross two lanes of traffic on Goodfellow.Child was visibly upset when he told Motherhe had to cross Goodfellow to get home that afternoon.

On October 24, 2019, First Student again assigned Richardson as the substitute driver for Child's afternoon school bus route.As the day before, Richardson was not provided a copy of the updated route sheet.In the video recording obtained from the school bus, Richardson said, "I don't know how I remember these routes."As Richardson approached the southeast corner of Goodfellow and Lalite, she stopped the school bus, put out the stop arm, activated her lights and opened the door.The video shows Child darting down the school bus stairs and running around to the front of the school bus.Almost immediately, a car stopped behind the school bus moved to pass the school bus on the left driver's side.Richardson sounded her horn multiple times and shouted, but the car struck Child and fled from the scene.The passing car's driver was never identified or apprehended.The video shows Child limping as he returned to board the school bus.

Child suffered a right ankle sprain and a left ankle fracture.Child's left ankle required surgery to place pins for stabilization, which were surgically removed later.Child required physical therapy.Child also underwent skin graft surgery to alleviate pain at the surgical scar site, which improved but remains sensitive and requires the site to be wrapped for Child to be comfortable.After the incident, Child went to therapy as he encountered emotional difficulty crossing streets, walking in parking lots with moving cars, and riding the bus to and from school.

Child's Negligence Claims

Mother as Child's next friend, sued Defendants for negligence.In Count I, Child alleged Richardson was...