Title: Edson v. Barre Supervisory Union #61

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Edson v. Barre Supervisory Union #61 (2006-166)

2007 VT 62

[Filed 20-Jul-2007]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2007 VT 62

                                No. 2006-166


  Janice Edson                                   Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        Washington Superior Court


  Barre Supervisory Union #61                    February Term, 2007
  and Barre City

  Helen M. Toor, J.

  Philip H. White and Kathleen B. O'Neill of Wilson & White, P.C.,
    Montpelier, and  John L. Franco, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Thomas Hayes and Bonnie B. Shappy of Hayes & Windish, Woodstock, for
    Defendant-Appellee.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.   In this wrongful death action, plaintiff Janice
  Edson alleges that administrators and teachers of Spaulding High School
  (collectively, "Spaulding") breached their duty of care and supervision to
  her daughter, DeAndra Florucci, when DeAndra left the school without
  authorization and was subsequently murdered.  The trial court granted
  summary judgment to Spaulding, finding that Spaulding did not owe a duty of
  supervision to DeAndra under the circumstances and that any action or
  inaction by Spaulding was not the proximate cause of DeAndra's death.  We
  affirm.
   
       ¶  2.  DeAndra Florucci began her second year at Spaulding High
  School in the fall of 2000.  She was fifteen years old and had a history of
  truancy and drug abuse.  On the morning of October 25, she arrived at
  school with a note from her mother excusing her from class for an 11:30
  a.m. doctor's appointment.  Her friend, a student from another school, was
  "shadowing" her at school that day. 

       ¶  3.  While DeAndra and and her friend were at the doctor's
  appointment, Donald Baumgardner, a nonstudent, entered the high school
  looking for DeAndra.  At the main office, he asked to see her and was told
  that he could leave a note for her.  After filling out a student-message
  form, Baumgardner exited the building.  Shortly thereafter, an assistant
  principal noticed Baumgardner entering through the vocational-center
  entrance at the rear of the school.  The assistant principal asked why he
  was still at the school, and Baumgardner answered that he was waiting to
  see if his note was delivered to DeAndra.  The assistant principal told
  Baumgardner that he had to leave and escorted him toward the main exit. 
  While the assistant principal was walking Baumgardner toward the exit, the
  bell rang, indicating a class change, and the halls filled with students. 
  The influx of students diverted the assistant principal's attention,
  leaving Baumgardner unaccompanied.
   
       ¶  4.  As Baumgardner was approaching the main exit, DeAndra and her
  friend returned to school from the doctor's appointment.  The three ran
  into one another in the school lobby and began to talk.  The assistant
  principal approached the group and asked DeAndra if the conversation was
  friendly; she replied that it was.  The assistant principal then instructed
  DeAndra and her friend to return to class and directed Baumgardner to leave
  the school.  Upon realizing that DeAndra had returned from an early
  dismissal, the assistant principal also instructed her to check in with the
  guidance office.  DeAndra responded that she needed something from her
  locker and walked in that direction.  Unbeknownst to the assistant
  principal, DeAndra failed to check in with the guidance office, and instead
  left school with her friend and Baumgardner through the rear exit. 

       ¶  5.  As they walked away from the school, Baumgardner told DeAndra
  that an acquaintance of theirs, Dana Martin, wanted to speak with her at
  his house.  She agreed to accompany Baumgardner there, and left her friend
  to wait on some steps as they headed toward Martin's home.  DeAndra did not
  return, however, and the police were eventually notified.  DeAndra's body
  was subsequently found under a bridge in Plainfield.  Martin confessed to
  sexually assaulting and murdering DeAndra, acknowledging that he had
  conceived the crime sometime late the night before or early the same
  morning.

       ¶  6.  Plaintiff filed a wrongful death suit against Spaulding in June
  2003.  She alleged that Spaulding was negligent in its supervision of
  DeAndra, and that its omissions led directly to DeAndra's sexual assault
  and murder.  In November 2004, Spaulding moved for summary judgment
  claiming that plaintiff failed to assert any material facts establishing a
  duty on the part of the school and that even assuming a duty and breach
  thereof, there was no proximate causation between Spaulding's actions and
  DeAndra's death.(FN1)  The trial court granted the motion in January 2006,
  finding that: (1) Spaulding "owed no duty to protect against an
  unforeseeable risk," and (2) its "actions were not the proximate cause of
  DeAndra's death."   
   
       ¶  7.  Plaintiff appeals, claiming that a reasonable jury could find
  Spaulding liable for DeAndra's death.  Specifically, she alleges that
  Spaulding: (1) had a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent DeAndra
  from leaving the school campus and to implement its visitor policy with
  regard to Baumgardner, (2) breached the duty of care it owed DeAndra, and
  (3) should have foreseen that harm would befall DeAndra under these
  circumstances.

       ¶  8.  We review a summary judgment decision de novo.  Mellin v. Flood
  Brook Union Sch. Dist., 173 Vt. 202, 211,