Sharp v. Fairbanks North Star Borough

Decision Date16 September 1977
Docket NumberNo. 3098,3098
Citation569 P.2d 178
PartiesClaude Wayne SHARP, Jr., by his father and next friend, Claude Wayne Sharp, Sr., and Claude Wayne Sharp, Sr., Individually, Appellants, v. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, Appellee.
CourtAlaska Supreme Court

Mark I. Wood, Rice, Hoppner & Hedland, Fairbanks, for appellants.

Stephen D. Cramer, Merdes, Schaible, Staley & DeLisio, Inc., Fairbanks, for appellee.

Before BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice, RABINOWITZ, CONNOR and BURKE, Justices.

OPINION

RABINOWITZ, Justice.

Claude Wayne Sharp, Jr. and Claude Wayne Sharp, Sr. appeal from the superior court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Fairbanks North Star Borough in connection with their claims for damages resulting from personal injuries received by Claude Wayne Sharp, Jr. We affirm.

During the 1973-74 school year, Wayne Sharp, Jr. was a fourth grader at North Pole Elementary School 1 and a participant in the school's wrestling program. The program was supervised by R. J. McKinstry, a faculty member who served as wrestling coach. McKinstry was also Head Official of the Amateur Athletic Union Northern Regional Wrestling Tournament, but this position was independent of his responsibilities with the school district.

The Amateur Athletic Union invited all North Pole wrestlers who were AAU members to participate in its Northern Regional Wrestling Tournament at the University of Alaska's Patty Gymnasium on the Fairbanks campus. In preparation for the event, Coach McKinstry took a leave of absence, without pay, in order to officiate at the tournament. School authorities agreed to excuse participants from school on the first day of the tournament, Friday, April 12, 1974, if their parents gave permission and to provide one-way bus transportation from the school to Patty Gymnasium on that day. McKinstry also distributed a letter to parents explaining, in part, that "(t)he AAU is not school sponsored," that the school would not furnish equipment or lunches, that the tournament hours were from 10 a. m. to 10 p. m., and that the parents were expected to provide transportation when matches concluded.

On Friday morning, the first day of the tournament, supervision of the North Pole wrestlers was minimal. Coach McKinstry's responsibilities as a referee precluded close monitoring of the students, and no parent or other adult had been formally requested or designated by the school to supervise.

Preliminary matches were apparently completed more rapidly than expected. Scheduling changes were therefore necessitated and AAU officials announced that the tournament would be recessed until 6 p. m. Subsequent to this announcement, Wayne Sharp, Jr. and three other competitors requested Frances Frey, mother of North Pole student-participant Marty Frey, to take them to lunch during the break. Mrs. Frey agreed to take Wayne Sharp, Jr. and stated that on the way to lunch she would stop at Market Basket, where Sharp's father was employed, to ask permission.

After leaving Patty Gymnasium, Mrs. Frey stopped at her husband's place of business and asked Marty to refuel her automobile. The four boys filled the tank; in the process, gasoline overflowed onto Wayne's and Marty's lower pants legs. Mrs. Frey ordered the boys back into her car and told them to leave the gasoline alone that it would evaporate. However, while his mother was inside the shop, Marty picked up a book of matches from the floor of the backseat, lit his own pant leg, and extinguished the fire without injury. He then lit the gasoline spot on Wayne's pants, but attempts to swat out the flames were unsuccessful. By the time Wayne could jump out of the car and into a nearby mud puddle, he had sustained second and third degree burns on his lower right leg.

Thereafter, Claude Wayne Sharp, Jr. and his father filed a complaint, later amended, alleging that their respective injuries and damages were caused by the negligence of the Freys and of the Fairbanks North Star Borough. Claims against the Freys were dismissed with prejudice after a settlement. The superior court granted the Borough's motion for summary judgment concluding in its memorandum decision that the Borough was under no duty to exercise supervision over tournament participants. The superior court further indicated that if it were to rule on the issue of legal cause, it would hold that any breach of the duty to supervise was not a "proximate cause" of Wayne Sharp, Jr.'s injuries. This appeal followed.

Before this court appellants contend that the superior court erred in granting summary judgment for the following reasons:

1. Genuine issues of material fact exist as to "school sponsorship" of participants in the AAU wrestling tournament.

2. As a matter of law, the school district owed a non-delegable duty to supervise students participating in the AAU tournament.

3. Genuine issues of material fact exist as to certain foreseeability questions affecting "proximate cause."

While appellants correctly point out that under proper circumstances a school district may be liable for failing to supervise activities held off school premises, 2 the instant case does not require decision of either the "sponsorship" question or the "duty" question. Assuming arguendo that participation of North Pole students was sponsored by the school district, that a non-delegable duty of supervision was owed to the participants, and that the Borough-school district failed to supervise adequately, the undisputed facts show that the Borough's actions were not the legal cause of Wayne Sharp's injuries.

Our conclusion is based upon two alternative grounds. First, the Borough-school district's assumed negligence was not a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Second, Mrs. Frey's actions constituted a superseding cause of Wayne Sharp's injuries.

Among the elements adopted by this court as necessary to make out a claim for relief based on negligence is "(a) reasonable close causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury . . . (proximate cause)." 3 More specifically, negligent conduct may properly be found to be a "legal cause" of a plaintiff's injury if the negligent act 4 "was more likely than not a substantial factor in bringing about (the) injury." 5 This test was further clarified in State v. Abbott, 6 where we said:

Normally, in order to satisfy the substantial factor test it must be shown both that the accident would not have happened 'but for' the defendant's negligence and that the negligent act was so important in bringing about the injury that reasonable men would regard it as a cause and attach responsibility to it. 7

We conclude that this test is not met because the Borough-school district's negligent (assumed) act was not so important in bringing about the injury that a reasonable person would regard it as a cause and attach responsibility to it.

The undisputed facts of the instant case show that Mrs. Frey took the boys away from the tournament site in her automobile, instructed them to refuel the vehicle, and permitted them to remain unsupervised after the gasoline was spilled. In addition, Marty Frey intentionally ignited the fuel spot on Wayne Sharp's clothing. Without these actions, the accident would not have occurred. Given the particular conduct of the Freys, no reasonable person could regard the Borough's failure to supervise at the tournament as a legal cause and attach responsibility to it.

That an opposite conclusion would be unreasonable is illustrated by the burden imposed on the Borough if its assumed negligent tournament supervision encompassed the Freys' actions. The Borough could have prevented the accident primarily in two ways: by refusing to allow Wayne Sharp to leave the gymnasium with Mrs. Frey or by supervising the boys throughout the time they were with her. Both alternatives would impose an unreasonably heavy burden on the Borough since school children are frequently transported by parents of other students and the informal supervisory relationships created by such transportation sharing are widely accepted. The school district would be placed in the position of insurer of its students unless it imposed regulatory measures designed to thwart the everyday practices of its students and their families. A determination of Borough responsibility in such circumstances would suggest a rule of strict liability and would restrict the flexibility needed for extracurricular activities. Accordingly, we hold that any negligence by the Borough was not a substantial factor in bringing about Wayne Sharp's injury.

Alternatively, we conclude that Mrs. Frey's actions constitute a superseding cause which relieves the Borough of liability even if the Borough-school district's negligence is assumed to be a substantial factor. The Restatement indicates that even if specific actions are a substantial factor in producing injury,

(t)he actor's conduct may be held not to be a legal cause of harm to another where after the event and looking back from the harm to the actor's negligent conduct, it appears to the court highly extraordinary that it should have brought about the harm. 8

On the facts of the case at bar, it is highly extraordinary that the school district's failure to exercise proper supervision at the wrestling tournament in Patty Gymnasium produced the harm in question. In retrospect, the primary reason the resulting harm seems extraordinary is that the Borough's assumed negligence was followed by particular acts of Mrs. Frey and Marty Frey without which the accident would not have happened. In our view the Freys' conduct comes within the Restatement's definition of intervening force: An intervening force is one which actively operates in producing harm to another after the actor's negligent act or omission has been committed. " 9 Under the circumstances of this case, Mrs. Frey's intervening actions were not reasonably foreseeable. The operation of such intervening actions prevents any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Meyering By and Through Meyering v. General Motors Corp.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 1990
    ...incorporating the rule of section 449. For other cases approving the rule of Restatement section 442B, see Sharp v. Fairbanks North Star Borough (Alaska 1977) 569 P.2d 178; Parness v. City of Tempe (App.1979) 123 Ariz. 460, 600 P.2d 764; Batko v. Mecca Inv. Co. (Tex.App.1982) 642 S.W.2d 41;......
  • Berry v. J & D Auto Dismantlers, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • August 13, 1992
    ...a verdict in favor of defendants based on proximate cause." Id. at 1001, 85 Ill.Dec. 163, 473 N.E.2d 531. Sharp v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 569 P.2d 178 (Alaska 1977), also presented a foreseeability question. The plaintiff was a child who was on his way home from an athletic event tha......
  • Kyriss v. State
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • October 3, 1985
    ...been cited in the majority opinion as supporting authority for the "substantial factor" rule. That case cites Sharp v. Fairbanks North Star Borough (Alaska 1977), 569 P.2d 178, where the following is set forth on page Among the elements adopted by this court as necessary to make out a claim......
  • Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., INGERSOLL-RAND
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • November 4, 1997
    ...where reasonable minds could not differ." Dura Corp. v. Harned, 703 P.2d 396, 406 (Alaska 1985) (citing Sharp v. Fairbanks North Star Borough, 569 P.2d 178, 183-84 (Alaska 1977)). Here, reasonable minds could differ: the evidence permitted a jury to find either that the defect caused the ac......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT