A Mississippi state appeals court has given new life to a lawsuit brought by a father and his son — high school football player Jason Swindle — who sued after Swindle was beaten up by another player, claiming the school district failed to properly supervise and discipline the aggressor, among other things.
Specifically, the court reasoned that “a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the school district violated its affirmative duty to maintain discipline and to supervise the students, as required by the school district’s handbook.”
The initial incident occurred on May 4, 2007, when Swindle and another member of the Neshoba Central High School football team, Eathan Scarbrough, got into a physical altercation on the football field during football practice after. Swindle testified that he was jumped by Scarbrough. The coaches intervened.
But the next day, on May 5, 2007, the same thing happened again when the two were “left unsupervised in front of the football locker room,” according to the appeals court. “This time, Eathan beat Jason so severely that he suffered brain damage and bodily injury.” The plaintiffs further claimed that the coaches “did not call for immediate emergency medical assistance upon learning of the altercation.” However, after the coach “arrived to the office and observed Jason experiencing the second seizure, (he) called an ambulance.”
On February 13, 2009, Swindle sued, naming the school district, Scarbrough, and his parents as defendants. “Swindle alleged that the school district breached the following duties: the duty to discipline and supervise its students as set forth in the Neshoba County School District handbook; the duty to provide a quick response to a medical emergency; and to adequately hire, train, and monitor its employees,” noted the appeals court.
On February 23, 2011, the school district successfully moved for summary judgment, claiming discretionary-function immunity pursuant to the Mississippi Torts Claims Act (MTCA). Swindle appealed.
Swindle’s primary argument was “that the trial court erred in concluding that the actions and conduct of the coaches, teachers, administration in the school district, and the school district itself, constituted a discretionary duty relating to the supervision of the football players at the school.”
After noting that the school district was a governmental entity, the appeals court focused on whether “immunity under the MTCA exists to bar the instant action against the school district in this case, or, if no governmental immunity exists, whether a disputed issue of material fact exists. We agree that the trial court erred in its determination. The school district herein possessed a ministerial duty to supervise and maintain discipline of students at school, as required by the affirmative duties set forth in the school district’s own handbook, and we, therefore, find that a question of material fact exists as to whether the school district breached its duty of ordinary care in performing this duty.”
The aforementioned handbook was an important factor in the holding, since it “defines the affirmative duty or standard of ordinary care imposed on teachers and coaches to supervise students during and after class and at all extracurricular activities.”
Elaborating on this, it noted that the handbook “left no discretion for teachers or coaches to decide whether to follow the handbook’s supervision requirements for students on school property assigned to their particular field of instruction at a school-sanctioned extracurricular activity.”
Jimmy Swindle v. Neshoba County School District; Ct. App. Miss.; NO. 2012-CA-00758-COA, 2013 Miss. App. LEXIS 574; 9/10/13
Attorneys of Record: (for appellant) Wayne E. Ferrell Jr. (for appellee) Roy A. Smith Jr., Steven James Griffin.
