Medeiros v. Sitrin

• Decision Date: 11 December 2009
• Docket Number: No. 2008-278-Appeal.,2008-278-Appeal.
• Citation: Medeiros v. Sitrin, 984 A.2d 620 (R.I. 2009)
• Parties: Michael MEDEIROS v. Laura SITRIN et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

984 A.2d 620

Michael MEDEIROS v.Laura SITRIN et al.

No. 2008-278-Appeal.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

December 11, 2009.

Kathleen Managhan, Esq., Newport, for Plaintiff.

Marc DeSisto, Esq., Providence, for Defendant.

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

OPINION

Justice FLAHERTY, for the Court.

Before this Court is an appeal by Michael Medeiros from a judgment as a matter of law entered in the Superior Court in favor of the defendants, Ronald Ford and the City of Newport.This case came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on November 3, 2009, pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.After hearing the parties' arguments and considering the memoranda submitted by counsel, we are satisfied that cause has not been shown, and we proceed to decide this appeal at this time without further briefing or argument.For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

IFacts and Travel

Medeiros fractured his ankle on February 1, 2002, when he was a twelfth-grade student at Rogers High School in Newport.The injury occurred after Medeiros's tardy arrival to his Marine Occupations class, which was taught by defendantRonald Ford.¹The Marine Occupations class prepares students in a variety of endeavors, including boat building and painting, welding, and fisheries.Because the class has a practical component as well as traditional instruction, it is taught in both a classroom and an adjoining laboratory (lab) in which the students receive hands-on training in boat building and servicing.Instruction first began in the class, but to enter the classroom, students were required to first pass through the lab.The opening between the classroom and lab had no door, facilitating passage between the two rooms.Ford's practice was to position himself near the entrance to the lab from the outside before his class was to begin.This allowed him to "monitor" the students coming into the Marine Occupations class and also to observe the students as they passed to their next classes.

When it was time for this class to begin, Ford would look outside for any lingering students.He and the students in the lab would wait for any final students to enter and then they would all proceed directly from the lab to the adjoining classroom as Ford followed behind.Once in the classroom, Ford would take attendance and distribute any materials.He would also visually assess the students to determine whether any looked ill or appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol and therefore not physically capable of working with equipment in the lab.Ford performed these duties from his desk within the classroom.From that vantage point, he had "limited" visibility into the lab and could not see its entrance.Because he lacked a view of the door connecting the lab to the outside, Ford purposely never oiled or greased the door, which had an audible squeak that alerted him when the door was opened, possibly by a tardy student.

On February 1, 2002, Ford, in keeping with his typical classroom practices, waited a few seconds after the bell for late students and then accompanied his students into the classroom.Approximately a minute and a half after the class period commenced, Ford had "pretty much" completed taking attendance.As he distributed information and forms to the students in the classroom, he"heard a very[,] very loud crash and a bang" as the lab door opened.He then "heard a commotion that sounded like people were moving at a rapid rate" for two to three seconds; this was followed immediately by a "crashing sound."Ford left the classroom immediately and went into the lab, where he saw Medeiros lying on the ground.²After promptly summoning the school nurse, Ford observed two of his students in the lab who had not been in the classroom: Brandon Burd and Jared Carlton.Ford had never before encountered any disciplinary issues with either of them.

Medeiros had arrived late to Marine Occupations class that day because, before he proceeded to class, he picked up his paycheck for an after-school job coordinated through the school.³This was not the first time Medeiros had been late to class after retrieving his paycheck.Ford had discussed Medeiros's tardiness with him, and he had never given him permission to be late.

Medeiros said that he entered the classroom through the lab door and when he opened the door it squeaked but then crashed against the building because of the wind.As soon as he entered the lab, he saw two students, Burd and Carlton, at their lockers.Medeiros said that he had problems with Carlton in the past when Carlton "picked on" him.According to Medeiros, Burd "grabbed [his] paycheck out of [his] hand."He attempted to retrieve the check from Burd, but Carlton "jumped on [his] back."Medeiros attempted to hold on to a workbench but lost his balance and fell into a sawhorse.When he tried to get up from the floor, he realized that his foot was "pointing at a 90-degree angle" to his leg.About five seconds elapsed from the time Medeiros entered the lab until he fell to the floor.The school nurse came to Medeiros's assistance.⁴

Emergency vehicles transported Medeiros to the hospital.There, an emergency room physician diagnosed Medeiros's injury as a fracture and dislocation of his ankle.Four days after the initial injury, Medeiros underwent a procedure to place "a steel plate and several screws" in his ankle so that, according to Medeiros, it would "heal straight."

On October 8, 2004, Medeiros filed suit against defendants, Ford and the City of Newport.In count 1 of his complaint, plaintiff alleged that Ford and the City of Newport owed him "a duty of reasonable care in the supervision of students within their charge," that they breached that duty to exercise reasonable care, and that the breach was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury.In count 2, plaintiff alleged that the City of Newport had "a duty to exercise a reasonable degree of care in the hiring, training and supervision" of Ford, that it breached this duty, and that this breach proximately caused plaintiff's injury.A jury trial was held in Superior Court on April 28 and 29, 2008.

After plaintiff rested, defendants moved for a judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50 of the Superior CourtRules of Civil Procedure.The trial justice granted the motion for judgment as a matter of law on count 2 after the parties agreed that no evidence had been presented on that count.As for the sole remaining count, defendants maintained that plaintiff had established neither a standard of care beyond a general duty of reasonable supervision nor Ford's deviation from even that standard.The plaintiff argued that Ford had a "duty to supervise students within his charge" as established through Ford's testimony and the direction in the Teacher's Handbook that "[s]tudents must be supervised at all times."The plaintiff contended that Ford therefore had a duty to supervise foreseeably late students who would have to travel through the lab to reach the classroom.The plaintiff further argued that Ford breached this duty because he was not present in the lab and was therefore unable to supervise Medeiros's late arrival in class on the day of his injury.Also, plaintiff argued that Ford's breach of the duty to supervise was the proximate cause of Medeiros's injury because it was foreseeable that students would be entering the lab and "could get into some horseplay and someone could get injured."

The trial justice granted the motion.He found that there were "no * * * factual issues upon which reasonable persons might draw different conclusions."The trial justice also found that Ford's testimony as to his classroom practices was "clear cut" and "uncontradicted."The trial justice held that Ford did not have a duty to supervise "at all times while he was doing different functions that must be performed by him," such as fulfilling his obligation to take attendance.He determined that Ford was aware of his duty to supervise and that there was no evidence "that he was abrogating that duty."Additionally, the trial justice determined that Ford could not have "anticipated" the incident that occurred among the three boys within a five-second time span.Therefore, the trial justice ruled that Ford did not breach his duty to supervise his students.Medeiros timely appealed.

IIAnalysis

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial justice erred when he granted defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law rather than submitting the case to the jury.The plaintiff argues that the jury could have assessed liability to Ford if it found he had breached his duty to supervise his students due to his absence from the lab when the incident that resulted in plaintiff's injury took place.He argues that expert testimony was not necessary, because a teacher's duty to supervise and the breach thereof are matters within the common knowledge of the jury.Finally, plaintiff contends that a jury could find that Ford's breach of his duty to supervise was the proximate cause of Medeiros's injury rather than the acts of Burd and Carlton, because a ruckus among the tardy students in the lab while Ford was in the classroom was reasonably foreseeable to him.

AStandard of Review

Our review of a trial justice's decision on a motion for judgment as a matter of law is de novo.Gianquitti v. Atwood Medical Associates, Ltd.,973 A.2d 580, 589(R.I.2009)(citingFranco v. Latina,916 A.2d 1251, 1258(R.I.2007)).Therefore, "[t]his Court, like the trial justice, will examine `the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, without weighing the evidence or evaluating the credibility of witnesses, and draw from the record all reasonable inferences that support the position of the nonmoving party.'"...