IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01999-SCT CHARLIE RADDIN, JACOB WOODARD, KY LE CORLEY , BRIAN STEPHENSON AND JEROLD HOLLOWELL

v. MANCHESTER EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC., Y AZOO CITY MEDICAL CLINIC, P.A., AND DR. WILLIAM THOMPSON

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/18/2013 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JANNIE M. LEW I S TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: JOHN DAVID PRICE JOHN MARTIN LASSITER CECIL MAISON HEIDELBERG COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: YAZOO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS: JOHN MARTIN LASSITER CHRISTOPHER DANIEL MEYER JOSEPH S. GATLIN, III ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: JOHN DAVID PRICE JOSHUA J. W IENER CECIL MAISON HEIDELBERG STUART BRAGG HARMON W A LTER T. JOHNSON JOSEPH GEORGE BALADI NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - TORTS-OTHER THAN PERSONAL INJURY & PROPERTY DAMAGE DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/08/2015 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE RANDOLPH, P.J., KING AND COLEMAN, JJ. RANDOLPH, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:¶1. This civil s uit w as f iled b y f ive a lum ni of Manchester Educational Foundation, Inc., (“Manchester”) af

ter the dean of students, R i chard Darden, adm itt e d t o v i e wing m ale students while t hey showered i n h is hom e . 1 The f i ve alum ni attended M anchester at various tim es f rom 1997 u ntil 2003. The t rial court granted sum m ary judgm ent in f avor of Manchester, Dr. W illiam Thom pson, a nd T he Y azoo City Medical Clinic, P.A., holding that the statute of lim itations as to Plaintif f s’ alleged claim s was not tolled until Plaintif f s learned of D arden’s conf

ession to voy eurism , because the f ive a l um ni should have known, with due d i l i g e n c e , t h at they were i njured by the activities they e n gaged in with D arden f or several
y ears. Finding that the trial court did not err in awarding sum m ary j udgm ent i n f avor of these def endants, this Court af

f irm s the judgm ent of t he Yazoo County Circuit Court.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW ¶2. R i c h a r d D a r d e n w a s h i red by Manchester in 1979. D arden wa s e mp l o y e d b y Manchester f

o r more than twenty -f

ive y ears, serving a s the trainer f or the f o otball team , coach/sponsor of t he golf t eam , and a teacher. He eve n t u a l l y was nam ed dean of students.
On May 6 , 2010, several students f rom Manchester discovered Darden viewing them while they showered i n his hom e af ter a f ootball p ractice. Manchester im me d i a tely term inated
Da r d e n ’ s e mploy

m ent af ter h e self

-reported his behavior to Headm aster B ry an Dendy

. Darden subsequently pleaded guilty to three counts o f voy eurism

. He was sentenced to f ive
y ears f or each count, f

or a t otal of f

if teen y e ars, a ll to be served on unsupervised probation. Darden was ordered to register as a sex of f ender, inter alia

.

1 N o n e o f th e v ictim s o f

th e 2 0 1 0 v o y eu rism

is a p arty to th is law su i t. 2¶3. Af

ter reports of Darden’s arrest were m ade public, Charlie Raddin, Jacob W oodard, Ky le Corley , Brian Stephenson, and Jerold Hollowell (“Plaintif f s ” ) f iled suit on May 26, 2010, whi c h l a w s u it was later am ended, against R ichard Darden, Manchester, Mississippi Association of Independent S chools, Inc., The Yazoo City Medical Clinic, P .A., Dr. W illiam Thom p son, GuideOne Mutual Insurance C om pany , Medical Assurance C o m pany of Mississippi, and T udor Insurance Com pany , alleging claim s of invasion of privacy , outrage, inf liction of em otional distress, b attery , battery b y im proper phy sicals, negligence, negligent hiring, negligent training, n egligent supervision, negligent entrustm ent, negligent r etention, breach of contract, a nd breach of f i duciary d uty

. Plaintif

f s also sought declaratory judgm ents

a g a i nst each of the three insurance com panies, alleging that their allegations triggere d coverage under the policies. ¶4. At som e point f

r om 1997 u ntil 2003, each Plaintif f play ed sports f

or M anchester. I n order to play sports f

or Manchester, each Plaintif f w as required t o undergo a n d pass a phy sical. Dr. Thom

pson has a cted as the team d octor f or Manchester f

or num erous y ears. Dr. Thom p son a nd The Yazoo City Medical Clinic (collectively “Dr. T hom pson”) voluntarily of f ered f r ee phy sicals to Manchester s tudents. Darden, who received a m edical d egree f rom the University of Mississippi Medical Center in the 1 970s, 2 was a llowed to a ssist Dr. Thom p son with these phy sicals perf orm ed at the Clinic f

or a num be r o f y e a r s. A ty

pical phy sical included checking a nd record i n g v i t al signs, height, weight, and blood pressure; checkin g f

or hernia; exam ining e ar, nose, throat, h eart, and lungs; and a general neuro2 H o w ev e r, D ard e n w as n ev er licen sed

. 3m

uscular skeletal exam . Dr. Thom pson never received any co mp l a i n t a bout Darden with respect to his assistance with phy sicals or otherwise. ¶5. Additionally , students, including Plaintif f s, of ten s tay ed overnight at Darden’s hom e and used his showers af

ter f ootball practices and gam es. Plaintif f s testif ied that t he showers in the Manchester f

i eld house were used as storage a nd were not clean. N one o f the Plaintif f s
te s t i f i e d t h a t he had direct evidence that Darden ever watched him take a shower f rom his reported secret room

. ¶6. Plaintif

f s also testif

ied that Darden’s hom e of ten was u s e d as a “com m o n m eeting ground” f or Manchester students. Plaintif f s testif ied that , o n o ccasion, while stay ing at Darden’s hom e, Darden would participate in wrestling m atches with the students. ¶7. Manchester f

iled a m otion f

or sum m ary judgm ent, which Darden joined, arguing that all Plaintif

f s’ claim s were barred by the statute of lim itations, because all of the alleged acts occurred during or bef

o re 2003. 3 Moreover, Plaintif f s reached their age of m ajority between
2002 and 2007. 4 D r . Thom pson and the Yazoo Clinic also f iled a m otion f

or sum m ary judgm ent, arguing that they were “qualif ied volunteers” u nder Mississippi law and im m une

3 Jero ld H o llo w ell g rad u ated f ro m M a n c h e s ter in 2 0 0 0

. C h arles R ad d in g rad u ated f ro m M an ch es ter in 2 0 0 1

. Jaco b Wo o d ard g rad u ated f ro m M an ch ester in 2 0 0 2

. B rian S tep h en so n g rad u ated f

r o m M an ch ester in 2 0 0 3

. K y le C o rley last atten d ed M a n c h ester in 2 0 0 3

. 4 Jero ld H o llo w ell t u rn e d tw en ty -o n e o n S ep tem b er 1 9 , 2 0 0 2

. C h a rles R ad d in tu rn ed t w en ty -o n e o n N o v em

b er 4 , 2 0 0 3

. Jaco b Wo o d a r d tu rn ed tw en ty -o n e o n S ep t e mb e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 4

. B rian S tep h e n so n tu rn ed tw en ty

- o n e o n M arch 4 , 2 0 0 6

. K y le C o rley tu rn e d tw en ty

o n e o n Jan u ary 2 8 , 2 0 0 7

. 4f

rom liability pursuant to Section 95-9-1 o f t h e M i s s i s sippi Code and that the c laim s were tim e-barred under the applicable statute of lim i tations. ¶8. In response to the m otions f or sum m ary judgm ent, Plaintif f s a rgued that the discovery rule a pplied to toll the statutes of lim itation because Plaintif f s s hould not have known of any injury until the f

acts surrounding Darden’s resignation becam e public. ¶9. At the hearing on the m o tions f or sum m ary judgm ent, Manchester a n d Dr. Thom pson argued that all intentional claim s were barred by the one-y ear statute o f lim itation and that

t h e d i s c o v e r y rule did not apply t o a ny intentional tort. Those claim s included i ntentional battery claim s, invas i o n o f privacy , o utrage, and e m otional distress, i .e., wrestling with Darden, having phy sicals p erf orm ed by Darden, having Darden adm inister drug tests, all of which occurred p rior to 2003. Manchester and D r. Thom pson also argued that the three-y ear
statute of lim itations served to bar the rem a ining claim s, w hich were breach of an unwritten contract, as well as all of

the general-negligence claim s. ¶10. Plaintif

f s adm itted that they were never injured during the wrestling m atches or the phy sical exam s as they were occurring. They also adm itted that they were aware they were being touched during t he wrestling m atches a n d phy sical exam s; theref o r e , t h e y all had knowledge t hat phy sical contact w as o ccurring. P laintif f s argued t hat, although the events took place bef

ore 2003, t he d i s c o very rule a p plied to each alleged claim because the discovery rule applies to latent injuries and that they could n o t h a v e known t he nature of Darden’ s actions and t heir subsequent injuries until Darden conf essed to being a voy eur; theref ore, the statutes of l im i tation on all of their claim s were t olled. Plaintif f s argued, at the

5very least, there was a jury question as to whether they knew or s hould have known of their

injuries prior to May 2010. ¶11. The trial court g r a n t e d M a n c h e s t er’s and Dr. Thom pson’s m o tions f

or sum m ary judgm ent based upon the statutes of lim itation. The P l a i n tif

f s a re f ive (5) y oung adults claim ing that they suf f ered injuries f rom Richard Darden a f

ter learning that Darden adm i tted to voy eurism in 2010. T he Plaintif

f s basically in t e racted w ith Darden over a period of tim e f rom 1999 [ u ntil] 2003. The Plaintif f s f u rther c l aim that they d id not realize they h ad a claim of a ction against Darden until he was convicted of voy eurism in 2010, and [ state] that they suf f ered a latent injury a nd the discovery rule is applicable to the statute of lim itation i n this m a tter. T he Def e ndants argue[ ] that t he d iscovery rule is not applicable, in this m a tter, a n d the statute of lim itation has expired. The f ocus is o n whether t he Plaintif f s suf f ered a latent injury and the discovery rule provided an exception t o the standard statute of lim itation of

Plaintif f s’ claim s.

. . . The C ourt a f

t e r reading t he deposition of all the P laintif f s f inds t hat at som e point, all of the Pla i n t i f f s thought or som eone m ention[ ed] to them , t hat Dar d en’s b ehavior m ight have b een u nusual. This i ncluded each P laintif f ’s statem ent t hat Darden saw them n aked in the locker room , or t ouched them on their genitals while wrestling and giving them a phy sical exam ination, or told them to drop their pants and underwear while he paddled them at his hom e or gave them

a phy sical. One Plaintif

f even stated he spoke with another coach when h e f

elt Darden inappropriately touched his genitals.

. . . T h e various Plaintif f s state they e xperienced these inciden t s w h i l e i n the ninth, tenth, eleventh and/or twelf

th grades. Theref ore, the Plaintif

f s were at an a ge t hat they should h ave, with due diligence, m ade an e f

f ort to discover if they were injured by t he a c tivities they engaged in with Darden f or 4-5 y ears. The trial c ourt entered a Rule 54(b) o r d e r , declaring the j udgm ent a f inal judgm ent f

or
purposes of the r

ule, as to M anchester, Dr. Thom pson a n d t he Y azoo C linic. Plaintif f s tim ely
f iled notice of this appeal, raising the f ollowing issue:

6W h ether the Yazoo County C ircuit C o urt e rred in granting Def endants’ Motions f or Sum m ary Judgm ent in determ ining t here was n o genuine issue of m aterial f act that Plaintif

f s knew o r should have known of their injuries prior to May 2010.
ANALYSIS ¶12. It is well-se t t l e d t h a t t h i s C o u r t a pplies a d e novo s tandard of review t o a circuit
court’s grant o r denial of s um m ary judgm ent. I n d e m . Ins. Co. of N. Am . v. Guidant Mut.
Ins . C o . , 9 9 S o . 3d 142, 149 (Miss. 2012). Sum m a ry judgm ent is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and adm i ssions o n f ile, together with the

a f f idavits, if any , show that there is no genuine issue as to any m aterial f act and that the

m oving party is entitled to a j udgm ent as a m atter of law.” Miss. R. Civ. P. 5 6(c). T his Court views the evidence “in the l ight m ost f a v o r a b l e to the party against whom the m otion has b e en m ade.” Daniels v. GNB, Inc. , 629 S o. 2d 595, 599 (Miss. 1993). H o w e v e r , t h e opposing party “ m a y not rest upon the m ere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his
response, by a f

f idavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, m ust set f orth specif

i c f acts showing that there is a genuine issue f or trial.” Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(e). ¶13. “The question of whether a statute o f lim itations is tolled by the discovery rule of ten
turns on the f

actual determ i nation of ‘what the plaintif f knew a n d when.’” S

tringer v. Trapp , 30 So. 3d 339, 342 (Miss. 2 0 10) (quoting Huss v . Gayden , 991 S o. 2d 162, 1 68 (Miss. 2008)). Thus, “‘[ o]ccasionally t he question of w h e ther the suit i s barred by t he statute of lim itations is a q

uestion o f f

act f or the jury ; however, as with o ther putative f act questions, the question m ay be t aken away f rom the jury if reasonable m inds could not dif f er as to the

7conclusion.’” Stringer , 30 So. 3d at 342 (quoting Sm ith v . S anders , 485 So. 2d 1 051, 1053 (Miss. 1986)). See also Benvenutti v. McAdam s , 162 So. 3d 808, 814 (Miss. 2015). ¶14. The discovery rule applies only “[ i]n actions f or which no other period of lim itation is prescribed.” Miss. Code A nn. § 15-1-49(2) ( Rev. 2012). The discovery rule t olls the statute of lim itations f

or (1) latent injuries or (2) nonlatent injuries where the negligence that caused the injury is not known. See H u ss v . Gayden , 991 So. 2d 162, 165-66 (Mis s . 2 0 0 8 ) ; Sutherland v. Estate of

Ritter , 959 So. 2d 1 004, 1008-09 (Miss. 2007). “[ A]n individual m ay
not take shelte r in the ‘discovery rule’ w hen r easonable m inds could not dif f er that the
p l a i n t i f f possessed suf

f icient inf orm ation to bring a claim .” H uss , 9 91 So. 2d at 1 6 7

. Additionally , because Plaintif f s were m inors at the tim e of the a lleged conduct, the statutes of lim itation were tolled u ntil t hey reached the age of m ajority

. See Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-
59. ¶15. “A latent injury

is def i ned as one where the plaintif f is precluded f

rom discovery

of the h arm or injury because of the secretive or inherently undiscoverable n a t u r e o f the wrongdoing in question, or w hen it is unrealistic t o expect a l a y ma n t o p erceive the injury

at the tim e of the wrongf

ul act.” PPG Architectural Finishes, I nc. v. Lowery , 909 So. 2d 47,
50 (Miss. 2005) ( citing Donald v. Am o co Prod. C o. , 735 S o. 2d 161, 168 ( Miss. 1999)). “For

an injury t o be latent i t m

ust be undiscoverable by reasonable m ethods.” I d. This Court has held that if

there is no latent injury , the discovery rule cannot apply

. Id.
I. Intentional Torts– One-Year Statute of Lim itations

8¶16. This Court has a pplied the discovery rule only to the intentional tort o f def am ation.
See Staheli v. Sm ith , 548 So. 2d 1299, 1302 (Miss. 1989) (This Court created an e xception
f or “ that lim i t ed class of libel cases in w hich, because of the secretive o r inherently undiscoverable nature of the publication the plaintif f d id not know, o r w i t h r easonable diligence cou l d n o t h ave discovered, that he had been def am ed. In such rare instances, we do not believe a plaintif

f can be accused of sleeping on his rights.”). In T ichenor v. Rom an Catholic Church of

Archdiocese of

New Orleans , 32 F.3d 953, 962 (5th Cir. 1994), the Fif th
C i r c uit held that t he plaintif f ’ s evidence that he had experienced a latent injury wa s insuf f icient to invoke t he discovery rule as to his claim s of i llicit sex, invasion of privacy , def am a tion, and libel. W e decline to extend the d iscovery rule to the intentional torts alleged in this action. ¶17. T h i s C o urt m

ust look to the f

ace of t he pleadings to determ ine whethe r P l a i n t i f f s brought their claim s f

or intentional torts within one y e a r o f t h e t im e they allegedly were injured. From the f

ace of t h e p l eadings, Plaintif f s d id not tim e ly f

ile their intentional tort claim s, f o r this s uit was f

iled in 2 010, seven y ears af ter the last Plaintif

f g raduated and m ore than three y e ars af

ter the last P laintif

f reached the age of m ajori t y . Theref ore, w e f ind that the t r i a l c o u r t d id not err in g ranting sum m ary judgm ent in f avor of Manchester and Dr. Thom p son as t o t he intentional tort claim s because thes e c l a i m s are tim e-barred. Additionally , the discovery r ule does not apply in this case because Plaintif f s c a nnot allege a claim of latent injury

. A. Battery (During Wrestling Matches and Sports Physicals)

9¶18. The intentional tort of battery requires ha r mf u l o r o f f ensive contact with a person. Whitten v. Cox , 799 So. 2 d 1 , 8 (Miss. 2000). Theref ore, actual t o u ching is a n essential elem ent of battery

. P laintif f s alle ge that phy sical contact o ccurred during the wrestling

m atches at Darden’s hom e a nd while Darden perf orm e d phy sicals on Plaintif f s. All of the wrestling m atches and phy sicals occurred no later than 2003. ¶19. All Plaintif

f s adm i t that, i n a ty

pical battery a ction, t he action would be ascertainable

to o ne at the tim e of the t ouching. Plaintif f s were aware of the touching a s it was o ccurring; theref ore, there was no l atent injury

. One Plaintif f even a dm itted th a t h e considered the phy sical contact, o f being struck by Darden, an a ssault at the tim e it occurred. Furtherm ore, each Plaintif

f adm itted that n o i njury o c c u r r e d during the phy sicals and that phy sicals perf orm ed by D arden were ordinary phy sicals, sim ilar t o t h e o n es perf orm ed by Dr. Thom p son. Plaintif

f s testif ied that the f

act t hat Darden was not l icensed to practice m edicine did not c a u s e a n y i n

jury to the Plaintif

f s. Because Plaintif

f s are unable to prove a latent injury , all battery

claim s are barred by the one-y ear statute of lim itations. ¶20. Plaintif

f s argu e t h a t t h e i r c a u s e of action f or battery could n ot have a ccrued until Darden was charged with voy e urism

. They f urther argue that the d iscovery rule s hould toll the s tatute of l i m itations because the battery w as “secretive and inherently undiscoverable.” However, Plaintif

f s cite n o authority f

o r this prem ise that a n injury f or battery can a rise m ore than seven y ears af

t er the a ctionable conduct. Since Plaintif f s’ a r gum ents are unsupported by any case authority , they need not be considered. S ee Farm Servs., Inc. v. Oktibbeha Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors , 860 So. 2d 804, 810 (Miss. 2003) (“Failure to cite c ase law in support

1 0of a n argum ent precludes this Court f rom considering the assignm e nt of error on appeal.” See also Hewlett v. State , 607 So. 2d 1097, 1107 (Miss. 1992). ¶21. P l a i n t i f

f s a d mittedly were aware of the touching w hen it occurred. The only n e w inf orm ation is the public knowledge of Darden’s a ctions as to the three s tudents w ho caught Darden viewing them while showering and his designation as a pedophile. Darden’s m otives and/or Manchester’s or Dr. Thom pson’s alleged f

ailure to act or discover Darden’s m otives

are irrelevant to t h e s e a c t i ons. Darden’s m otion, i.e., secretly gratif y ing his lust, does not change the phy sical nature of Darden’s conduct. If the touching was inappropriate at the t im e it occurred, it was inappropriate no m atter what Darden was thinking during the contact. ¶22. T h e c l a im f

or wrongf ul t ouching began a t the tim e of the t ouching, not eight y ear s later. Th e r e i s n o caselaw to support Plaintif f s’ argum ent t hat the s tatute of lim itations f or battery was tolled until they l earned of Darden’s arrest f or voy eurism

. T heref

ore, we f ind the trial court did not err in granting sum m ary judgm ent in f av o r o f M a n c hester and Dr. Thom p son as to Plaintif

f s’ battery claim s. B. Invasion of Privacy 1. During Drug Screenings 5 and Sports Physicals ¶23. T h e t o r t o f i nvasion of privacy is com prised o f f

our distinct and separate subtor t s which are as f

ollows: 1. The intentional intrusion upon the solitude or seclusion of another; 2. The appropriation of

another’s identity

f or an unperm itted use; 3. The public disclosure of private f acts; and

5 P lain tif f R ad d in testif

ied th at h e d i d n o t p a r ticip ate in an y d ru g screen in g s; th eref o re, h e alleg ed n o su ch claim s. 1 14. Holding another to the public ey e in a f alse light.
Plaxico v. Michael , 735 So. 2 d 1 0 36, 1039 (Miss. 1 999) (quoting Candebat v. Flanagan , 487 So. 2d 207, 2 09 (Miss. 1986)). Plaintif f s allege that D arden’s presence at d rug screenings

as a collector of urine s am ples and at sports p h y s i cals w ere invasions of their privacy

. However, Plaintif

f s cite n o authority in which the d iscovery rule has been applied to toll the statute of lim itation f

or invasion-of

-privacy c l aim s . ¶24. There w as nothing s ecretive about the m onitoring process of the drug screens or the phy sicals. All students were aware that they were b eing m onitored by Darden or other m ale teachers/coaches while specim e n s w e r e being collected and that phy sicals were being
p e r f o r me d by Darden or Dr. Thom pson while t he students were undressed. All sport s phy sicals occurred no later than 2003, and all drug screenings occurred no later than 2002. The discovery rule does not t oll the statute of lim itations f or their c laim s f

or invasion of privacy during the drug screens and phy sicals, and these claim s are tim e-barred.
2. During Sleepovers ¶25. Plaintif

f s also allege that Darden invaded their privacy during tim es when Plaintif f s spent the night at Darden’s hom e. Although Darden r eportedly used a peep hole to observe Manchester students in 2010, there is no evidence that t he p eep hole existed during the period of tim e that Plaintif

f s spent the night at Darden’s hom e. All s leepovers occurred n o later than
2003. Plaintif

f s have adm itted t h e y h a ve no evidence t hat D arden watched them in the shower. Mere allegations in a com plaint a re i nsuf

f icient to create a genuine issue of m aterial
f act and thus cannot def

eat a m otion f

or sum m ary judgm ent. Stuckey v. The Provident Bank ,

1 2912 So. 2d 859, 871 (Miss. 2005). Because there is n o evidence that Darde n w atched

Plaintif f s while they showered in his hom e, th e r e also is no evidence of a latent injury

. W i thout a latent injury , the statute of lim itations is not tolled, and P laintif f s’ claim s are tim ebarred. Theref

ore, we f ind t hat t he trial court properly granted sum m a ry

judgm ent in f

avor of Manchester and Dr. Thom p son as to Plaintif

f s’ claim s of

invasion of

privacy

. C. Em otional Distress and Outrage ¶26. Plaintif

f s allege that the drug testing, sports phy s icals, and a lleged voy eurism create

a claim f or inf liction o f e m otional distress. Nothing in t he record suggests the drug testing, sports phy sicals, and a lleged voy eurism were any thing other than intentional. Given the f act
t h a t Plaintif

f s adm i t that no injury was sustained at the tim e of the drug s c r e e n s a n d phy sicals, these procedures c annot be the b asis f or a claim of intentional i nf liction of

em otional distress. Additionally , claim s f o r inf liction of em otional distress are barred by the
one-y ear statute of lim itations. S ee Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-35 (Rev. 2012). ¶27. Plaintif

f s a l s o a l l e g e a claim f

or outrage, however, “[ t]his Court h as recognized outrageous conduct as a tort m ore com m only known as the intentional inf liction of em otional distress.” Donald v. A m oco Prod. Co. , 735 So. 2d 161, 179 (Miss. 1999). Theref ore, these claim s, like the claim s of

inf liction of em otional distress, are tim e-barred. II. Negligence and Breach of Contract Claim s – Three-Year Statute of Lim i tations ¶28. On the f

ace of the com

plaint, all rem aining claim s governed by t he three-y ear statute of lim itations are tim e-barred, because this suit w as f iled m o r e t h a n t hree y ears af ter the
y oungest P laintif

f reached the age of m ajority

. Because all of the Plaintif f s t estif ied that they

1 3w e re n ot injured while they were students at Manchester, they cannot now c l aim a late n t

injury invokes the discovery rule. If Plaintif f s c annot prove a latent injury , there is no tolling of the s tatutes of lim itation. Furtherm ore, Plaintif f s c ite no cases where t he discovery rule has been applied to toll the r u n n i ng of the statue o f lim i tations on a claim f or b reach of an unwritten contract. W e f

ind that the trial c ourt p roperly held t hat P laintif f s’ negligence and breach-of -contract claim s were tim e-barred.
CONCLUSION ¶29. Because all a lleged intentional t o r t s occurred m ore than one y ear p rior t o Plaintif f s f iling s uit and all alleged negligence claim s occurred m ore than three y ears b ef ore Plaintif

f s f iled suit, the t rial court p roperly granted sum m ary judgm ent in f avor of Manchester and Dr.
T h o m pson based on the claim s being tim e-barred. T his Court af f irm s the j udgm e n t o f t h e Yazoo County

Circuit Court. ¶30. AFFIRMED.
W A L L E R , C . J., DIC K

I N S O N , P . J . , L A M A R , K I T C H E N S , C H A N D L E R , K I N G AND COLEMAN, JJ., CONCUR . P IERCE, J., NOT P ARTICIP ATING .

1 4