A Missouri state appeals court has affirmed the ruling of a lower court and granted summary judgment to a pair of head football coaches, who were sued by a participant in a summer football camp for negligence after the participant suffered an injury.
The appeals court reasoned that the men were entitled to “official immunity.”
Plaintiff Marcus Haley participated in a multi-school summer high school football camp, known as the Hut Team Camp, in June 2011. Haley was a member of the Centralia High School football team.
Erle Bennett and Chris Smoot were named defendants in the case.
Bennett, the head football coach at Centralia High School, was coaching the Centralia High School football team during the camp. Bennett also was employed by the Centralia School District as a physical education teacher. He received a monthly salary from the school district that included a stipend that covered all of his duties as head football coach. Before attending the camp in June 2011, Bennett prepared a summer schedule of football-related activities and reviewed that schedule with the Centralia athletic director to determine if attending the camp complied with Missouri State High School Athletic Association (MSHSAA) regulations. Bennett received permission from the Centralia School District to take the Centralia High School football team to the camp, to travel to the camp on school district buses, to use school district equipment and jerseys, and to bring a school district provided athletic trainer to the camp. The Centralia School District superintendent also attended to help Bennett supervise the athletes participating in the camp. Prior to attending the camp, Bennett decided that only sophomores, juniors, and seniors would be allowed to attend the camp. Bennett cleared that decision with the athletic director. Bennett also determined how long the Centralia High School football team would attend the camp and how many games they would play.
Smoot, employed by the Clinton School District as a teacher and the head football coach in June 2011, was coaching the Clinton High School football team during the camp. Smoot had a nine-month teacher’s contract with the Clinton School District and received a stipend to compensate him for all of his football-related activities. Smoot’s responsibilities as head football coach extended through the summer. Prior to attending the camp, Smoot checked with the Clinton School District athletic director to determine if the camp conflicted with other summer activities. The Clinton School District athletic director approved of Smoot’s decision to attend the camp. The Clinton High School football team traveled to the camp on Clinton School District buses, wore school district uniforms, and used school district equipment. During the camp, Smoot decided who his team would play against, which players would play on any given play, and whether his players were practicing in a safe manner.
Individual players had to pay a fee to the camp in order to attend, but attendance at the camp was not required to play football in the fall for either Centralia or Clinton High School. Referees were not at the camp, but coaches agreed to look for rule infractions in addition to proper play execution and could stop play if they observed rule infractions.
Haley was playing in a full-pad, full-contact scrimmage at the camp against the Clinton High School football team when he was injured by another player. Haley contends that the tackle that resulted in his injury was an overly aggressive, below-the-waist hit after a play was over, and that the lack of adequate supervision caused the injury.
On August 4, 2014, Haley sued Bennett and Smoot, among others. Haley alleged that Bennett’s and Smoot’s negligence and their lack of adequate supervision of players at the camp led to Haley’s injury.
Bennett and Smoot filed separate motions for summary judgment, arguing, among other things, that Haley’s claims against them were barred by the doctrine of official immunity given their status as public school teachers and coaches. The trial court entered a judgment granting Smoot’s motion on March 27, 2015, and a separate judgment granting Bennett’s motion on April 3, 2015. The trial court’s judgments did not specify the basis on which the motions for summary judgment were granted. Haley separately appealed the judgments, which were consolidated.
On appeal, Haley alleged that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Bennett and Smoot were acting within the scope of their employment, which prevented the entry of judgment as a matter of law based on either the affirmative defense of official immunity or the affirmative defense of immunity under the Coverdell Act. He also alleged that the trial court misapplied the law because Bennett and Smoot were not public officials entitled to assert the defense of official immunity or the defense of immunity under the Coverdell Act.
The court noted that “Official immunity protects public officials from liability for alleged acts of ordinary negligence committed during the course of their official duties for the performance of discretionary acts.” Woods v. Ware, 471 S.W.3d 385, 391 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (quoting Davis v. Lambert—St. Louis Int’l Airport, 193 S.W.3d 760, 763 (Mo. banc 2006)). “Official immunity is intended to provide protection for individual government actors who, despite limited resources and imperfect information, must exercise judgment in the performance of their duties.” Ware, 471 S.W.3d at 391
“Missouri courts have routinely extended official immunity to discretionary acts even when the public official’s actions were not governmental in nature.” Richardson v. City of St. Louis, 293 S.W.3d 133, 140 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009).
Haley cited several cases to support his argument that public school teachers and coaches are not public officials entitled to official immunity. All of those cases, however, were decided before Southers v. City of Farmington, 263 S.W.3d 603, 608 (Mo. banc 2008), which held that “the official immunity doctrine protects all public employees ‘from liability for alleged acts of negligence committed during the course of their official duties for the performance of discretionary acts.’” Ware, 471 S.W.3d at 392 n.4 (quoting Southers, 263 S.W.3d at 610). As such, the cases Haley cites are neither persuasive nor controlling. The trial court could properly have concluded, therefore, that Bennett and Smoot are public officials entitled to assert the defense of official immunity, so long as their alleged acts of negligence were “committed during the course of their official duties for the performance of discretionary acts.” Id. (quoting Southers, 263 S.W.3d at 610).
“Simply stated, Haley’s proposition disregards the fact that ‘sovereign immunity and official immunity are distinct legal concepts,’” wrote the court, citing Davis, 193 S.W.3d at 765. “Waivers of a governmental entity’s sovereign immunity are to be narrowly construed. Woods, 948 S.W.2d at 637. . . This purpose would not be served by restraining official immunity to the performance of duties under circumstances that would subject an employer to vicarious liability. Though ‘a governmental employer may still be liable for the actions of its employee even if the employee is entitled to official immunity,’ Davis, 193 S.W.3d at 766, it does not follow that an employee is only entitled to official immunity if the employee’s conduct will subject the governmental employer to vicarious liability.
“Instead, as directed by Southers, the standard for determining whether a public official has official immunity is whether the public official negligently performed discretionary acts ‘during the course of their official duties.’ Ware, 471 S.W.3d at 392 n.4 (quoting Southers, 263 S.W.3d at 610). This is a broader standard than whether a public official has acted strictly within the scope of employment because the manner, methods, and means of performance were subject to the employer’s control.
“The uncontroverted facts establish that Bennett and Smoot were performing discretionary acts during the course of their official duties at the time Haley was injured. Haley admits that Bennett and Smoot were employed as teachers and football coaches by their respective school districts during the camp and that the camp was a ‘multischool football scrimmage.’ Haley admits that Bennett’s and Smoot’s ‘roles at the [C]amp were as football coaches.’ Haley admits that he was injured while participating in the football scrimmage while under Bennett’s and Smoot’s supervision.
“It is uncontroverted that Bennett was employed by Centralia as the head football coach at the time of the incident; that he was acting as a public school employee and head football coach at the time of the incident; that he received compensation for all football-related activities from the school district; that he received permission from his school’s athletic director to attend the camp; that he received permission to use school district transportation, equipment, and uniforms at the camp; that he decided which players would attend the camp; that he decided how long the Centralia High School football team would attend the camp; that he decided how many games the team would play at the camp; and that he would stop play at the camp if he observed rule infractions or dangerous play.
“It is uncontroverted that Smoot was employed by Clinton as the head football coach during the incident; that he took the Clinton High School football team to the camp to prepare for the upcoming season; that he received a stipend to compensate him for all football-related activities; that his football activities extended through the summer; that his school’s athletic director approved of his decision to attend the camp; that he received permission to use school district transportation, equipment, and uniforms at the camp; that he decided who his team would play against at the camp; that he decided which players would play on any given play; that he determined whether his players were practicing in a safe manner at the camp; and that he would stop play at the camp if he observed rule infractions or dangerous play.
“These uncontroverted facts establish that Bennett’s and Smoot’s ‘alleged acts of negligence [were] committed during the course of their official duties.’ Ware, 471 S.W.3d at 392 n.4 (quoting Southers, 263 S.W.3d at 610). The trial court did not err in concluding that Bennett and Smoot are entitled to official immunity.”
Marcus Haley v. Erle Bennett and Chris Smoot; Ct. App. Mo., West. Dist.; WD78509 Consolidated with WD78517, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 113; 2/9/16
