I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 8 - I A- 0 1 2 0 7 - S CT COVI NGTON COU

NTY S CHOO L DI

S TRICT
v. LUT RICI A MAGEE, I

NDI VI DUA L L Y A ND ON BEH ALF O F THE W RO NG FUL DE ATH B EN E F IC I A R I ESO F L O N N I E C . M A G EE, J R ., DECEASED, AND ALL OTHERSW HO ARE E N T I TL E D TO R E C O V E R UN

D E R T

H E W RO NG FU

L DE ATH AN D SU RVI VAL STATUTE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 25/ 2008 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. RO BE RT G. E VANS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: COVI NGTON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : W IL L IA M B U C K L E Y S T E W A R T , S R
. RO BE RT P
. T HOMP S ON ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: GER ALD PATRI CK CO LLI ER NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - W RO NG FUL D EATH D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 01/ 28/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E C A R L SO N , P . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D P I E R C E , JJ. CAR LS ON , PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. L utr i c i a M a ge e , i nd i vi du a l l y a nd o n be ha l f o f the wr on gf

ul
- de a th be nef

i ci ar i es of L on nie C
. M agee , J r . , dece as ed, and al l other s w ho ar e ent i t l ed t o r ecove rundert he
w r ongf ul
- death s t atut e, f

i l ed s ui tagai ns tthe C ovi ngt on C ounty School D i s tr i ct , al l egi ng negl i gence and r es i

ps a l oqui t ur . T he C ovi ngt on C ounty School D i s tr i ctf i l ed i t s M ot i on f

or Sum m ary J udgm ent , w hi ch the C ovi ngt on C ounty C i r cui tC our tgr ant ed i n partand deni ed

### Th e orig inal co mplaint is no t part o f the reco rd b efore th is Co urt. 1 

### 2 i n part . Fi ndi ng thatthe ci rc ui tcourterr ed by f ai l i ng t o gr antthe D i s tr i ct ’ s m ot i on f or
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in to to , w e re v e rse th e c irc u it c o u rt’s o rd e r a n d re n d e r ju d g m e n t h e re in fa v o r o f th e C o v in g to n C o u n ty S c h o o l D istric t.

F ACT S AND P ROCE ED I NGS I N T HE T RI AL COURT ¶2
. O n A ug us t8, 20 07 , Lonn i e C. M a ge e , J r . ( Lonn i e ) , a ge s e ve nt e e n, w a s a s tud e ntat M ountO l i ve A t t endan ce C ent erand a mem berof the s chool ’ s f

ootbal l t eam. D ur i ng t he
cour s e of f ootbal l pr act i ce on a n a dm i t t edl y hotA ugus tda y, Lonni e col l aps ed. E m er gency
m e d ica l p e rso n n e l ar riv e d to fin d L o n n ie u n re sp o n siv e . C P R a n d a ll o th e r life sa v in g e ffo rts
u lt im ately fail ed , an d L o n n ie w as p ron o u n ce d de ad at the C o v ing ton C o u n ty H o sp ital in C ol l i ns , M i s s i s s i ppi
. H eats tr oke al l egedl y w as the ca us e of L onni e’ s death. ¶3. O n February 25, 2008, L utr i ci a M agee ( M agee) , indi vidual l y and on beha l f of the
w ron g ful-de ath b en eficiari es o f L o n n ie C
. M ag e e , Jr., d ec ea sed , an d all o thers w h o are
e n tit led to re c o v e r u n d e r th e w ro n g fu l-d e a th sta tu te, filed h e r F irst A m e n d e d C o m p lain t in 1 the C i r cui tC our tof

C ovi ngt on C ounty, as s ert i ng c l ai m s of ne gl i gence and r es i

ps a l oqui t ur . T he C ovi ngt on C ount y School D i st ri ct(the D i s tr i ct ) s ubs equent l y f i l ed i t s A ns w erand D ef ens es on M ar ch 20, 2008, and i t s M ot i on f orSum m ary J ud gm enton M ay 14, 2008. M agee f i l ed herr es pons e, and the D i s tr i ctf i l ed i t s r ebutt al
. O n J une 20, 2008, a hea r i ng w as hel d on the mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent , J udge R obertG
. E vans pr es i di ng. J udge Evans
rul ed: “I bel i eve ther e does exi s tgenui ne i s s ues of mat er i al f act . A nd over
- s i m pl i f

yi ng t he

### The tria l court’ s grant of summary judgm ent a s to t he res ipsa loq uitu r cl ai m i s not 2 

### befo re this C ourt. 3 ques t i ons i nt ent i onal l y, I’ l l puti ti nt o one and sa y the ques t i on i s w hetherthe s chool di s tr i ct pr ovi ded a s af

e envi r onm ent . ” T he t r i al cour tsubs equent l y ent er ed an O r der , s t at i ng “that genui ne i s s ues of

mat er i al f

acte xi s t s [ sic ] an d the D efe n d an t’ s M o ti o n for S u m m ary Ju d g m en t is d en ied, bu t g ran ted, i n p art, as to P lai n ti ff’ s claim o f R es I ps a Loqui t ur . ” A s a
r es ul t , the D i s tr i ctf

i l ed i t s Pet i t i on f

orPerm i s s i on t o A ppeal I nt er l ocut ory O r derand f orSt ay of T r i al C our tPr ocee di ngs , as s ert i ng t he t r i al cour ter r ed i n denyi ng, i n par t , i t s m ot i on f or
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T h is C o u rt g ra n ted th e D istric t’s p e tit io n fo r in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a l. 2 DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 4
. T h e D istric t co u c h e s th e iss u e b e fo re th e C o u rt in th e se ter m s: W hethert he cl ai m s of the [ pl ai nt i f f ] agai ns tt he [ D i s tr i ct ] ar e bas ed upon the Di s tr i c t ’ s e x e r c i s e o rp e r f o r ma n c e o rth e f

a i l u r e t o e x e r c i s e orp e r f o r m a di s cr et i onary f

unct i on or duty, w hetheror nott he di s cr et i on be abus ed, ther eby ent i t l i ng t he D i s tr i ctt o i m m uni ty fr om t he [ p] l ai nt i f f’ s cl ai m s pur s uantt o [ the M is s is s ip p i T o rt C la im s A c t]. O n the ot her han d, M agee c ou ches t he is sue(s ) bef ore the C ou rtas f

oll ow s: W hetherthe cl ai m s of

the [ pl ai nt i f

f ] agai ns tthe [ D i s tr i ct ] ar e bas ed upon the D i s tr i ct ’ s exer ci s e of

or di nary car e i n r el i ance upon, orthe exe cut i on or per f or m ance of

orthe f ai l ur e t o exer ci s e orper f or m a s t atut e, or di nance, or r egul at i on? W hether[ the D i s tr i ct ] ha s a s t atut ory duty t o pr ovi de a s af e envi r onm ent f

or i t s s tudent s and t o m i ni m i ze r i s ks t o i t s s tudent s a nd w hetherthi s duty appl i es t o deci s i ons and/ orconductr el at ed t o al l ow i ng f ootbal l prac t i ce t o be con du ct ed in dan gerousl y h ot and hu m i d tem peratures? W e thus combi ne and r ephr as e thes e i s s ues i nt o one i s s ue f orthe s ake of

t oday’ s di s cus s i on.

### 4

W HETH ER THE TRI AL CO URT ERRED I N FAI LI NG TO G RAN T, I N TO TO , THE DI S TRI CT’ S M OTI ON F OR S UM M ARY J UDG M ENT. ¶5. T hi s C our t ’ s w el l
- es t abl i s hed s t andar d of r evi ew f or a tr i al court ’ s gr ant or deni al of
su m m ary j ud gm ent i s de novo
. W ag g o n e rv. W

illia m s o n , 8 So. 3d 147, 152 ( M i s s . 2009) ( ci t i ng O n e S o u th , In c . v. Ho llo w e ll , 9 6 3 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 6 , 1 1 6 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ); Hubbard v. W ansley , 954 So. 2d 951, 956 ( M i s s . 2007) )
. Sum m ary j udgm enti s appr opr i at e w her e “the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es and admi s s i ons on f i l e, t ogetherw i t h t he af f i davi t s , i f

a ny , s ho w tha tthe r e i s n o ge nu i ne i s s ue a s t o a ny mat e r i a l f a c ta nd thatt he
m ovi ng par t y i s e nt i t l e d t o a j ud gmen ta s a matt e ro f l a w . ” M i s s . R. Ci v. P. 5 6( c )
. "The
m ov i ng party h as the b urden o f dem on strat i ng that no ge nu i ne i ssue of m at eri al fact (s ) exi st s, and t he no n- movi ng pa r ty mus tbe gi ve n the be ne f i tof the do ub tc on c e rni ng the e xi s t ence of a m at eri al fact
. " W

aggoner , 8 So. 3d at152- 53 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. F ur ther , “[ p] ar t i al
s um m ary j udgm enti s al s o perm i s s i bl e underourrul es , ut i l i zi ng the s ame cr i t er i a f ora gr ant
o r d e n ia l o f a s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a n d th e s a m e s ta n d a rd o f r e v ie w o n a p p e a l.” I d . at153 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). See M iss. R
. C iv. P. 56 (d). ¶6
. T he D i s t r i ctar gues t hati t s al l eged ac t s oromi s s i on s w e r e no tmi ni s t er i al , but di s cr et i onary i n natur e, ther eby ent i t l i ng the D i s tr i ctt o i m m uni ty ( exempt i on f r om l i abi l i ty) pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 46- 9( 1) ( d)
. M agee , how ever , cont ends thatt he D i stri ctfai l ed to perf

orm i t s st atutory d uty t o p rovi de a safe envir on m ent f or i t s stud ents ; th e re fo re , M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )(b ) is trig g e re d , a n d it i s a n iss u e o f fa c t as to

### 5

w h e th e r t h e D is tr ic t e x e rc is e d o rd in a ry c a re . See M i ss. C ode A nn. §§ 11- 46- 9( 1) ( d) , ( b) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶7. T he D i stri ctcon st i tutes a “go vernm ental ent i ty” and a“pol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on” pur s uant t o t he M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ct(M T C A )
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11–46- 1 ( R ev. 2002)
. T he M T C A pr ovi des the exc l us i ve r emedy agai ns ta governm ent al ent i ty ori t s e m pl oyee f ort he actoromi s s i on w hi ch gave r i s e t o the s ui t . M i s s . Code A nn. § 11- 46- 7( 1) ( R ev. 2002)
. T he i nt entof the M T C A i s t o pr ovi de i m m uni ty f r om s ui tt o the s t at e and i t s pol i t i cal
s ubdi vi s i ons ; how ever , the M T C A w ai ves i m m uni ty f orcl ai m s f

orm oney damages ar i s i ng outof the t or t s of gover nm entent i t i es and empl oyees w hi l e ac t i ng w i thi n the cour s e and
s cope of t hei rem pl oym entt o t he ext entsetforth i n t he M T C A
. M i s s . C ode A nn. §§ 11- 46- 3( 1) , 11- 46- 5( 1) ( R ev. 2002)
. T hi s w ai verof i m m uni ty i s s ubj ectt o e xempt i ons . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 9 ( R ev. 2002)
. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 11- 46- 9 s t at es , i n pert i nent p a rt: ( 1) A governm ent al ent i ty and i t s empl oyees act i ng w i thi n t he cou r s e and s c o p e o f th e i re mp l o y me n to rd u t i e s s h a l l n o tb e l i a b l e f o ra n y c l a i m:

. . . (b) A ri sing o u t of an y a c t or o m issi o n o f an em p loy ee o f a gover nm ent al ent i ty exer ci s i ng or di nary car e i n r el i ance upon, ori n the exec ut i on orper f

or m ance of

, ori n the f

ai l ur e t o exec ut e orper f or m , a s t atut e, or di nance orr egul at i on, w hetherornotthe s t atut e, or di nance orr egul at i on be val i d;

. . . ( d) B as ed upon the exe r ci s e orper f or m ance orthe f

ai l ur e t o exer ci s e or p e rfo rm a d isc re tio n a ry fu n c tio n o r d u ty o n th e p a rt o f a g o v e rn m e n tal e n tity orempl oyee ther eof

, w hetherornotthe di s cr et i on be abus ed;

. . . M iss C o d e A n n . § § 1 1 -46 -9(1 )(b), (d) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ).

### 6

¶8
. T h e D istri c t su b m its th a t its a lleg e d c o n d u c t c o n stitutes d iscreti o n ary b eh av ior,
w her eas M agee ar gues t hata school di s tr i ct ’ s st atut ory dut y t o provi de a s af e envi r onm ent h a s b e e n p o sitiv e ly im p o se d b y law , thu s its a c tio n s a n d d u ties a re m in iste ria l. “A d u ty is di s cr et i onary i f

i trequir es the of

f i ci al t o us e herow n j udgm entand di s cr et i on i n the per f or m ance ther eof

. ” Stew ar t

ex r el . W om ack v. Cit

y of Jacks on , 804 So. 2d 1041, 1048 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. O n the otherhand, “an a cti s m i ni s t er i al ‘ ( i f ) the duty i s one
w hi ch has been pos i t i vel y i m pos ed by l aw and i t s per f or m ance r equi r ed ata t i m e and i n a
m annerorundercondi t i ons w hi ch ar e s peci f i cal l y desi gnat ed, t he dut y t o per f or m undert he condi t i ons s peci f

i ed notbei ng depende nt upo n the of f i cer ’ s j udgm entordi s cr et i on. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng L .W

. v. Mc Co m b S e

p a ra te M u n . S c h . D ist. , 7 5 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 4 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )). If the D istri ct’s co n d u ct i s d ee m ed m inist erial, itis th en p rotec ted fro m li ab il ity o n ly if
or di nary car e i s exer ci s ed i n per f or m i ng orf

ai l i ng t o per f

or m the s t atut ory duty orr egul at i on. I d. ( quot i ng L a n gv. B a y S t. L o u is/W

a v e la n d S c h . D ist. , 76 4 S o. 2d 12 34 , 1 2 4 0 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 )). ¶ 9
. M a g e e a rg u e s th a t th e D istric t fa iled to e x e rc ise o rd in a ry c a re in re lian c e u p o n , o r in the exe cut i on orper f

or m ance of

, or i n t he f

ai l ur e t o exec ut e orper f or m , a s t atut e, or di nance
o r r e g u la tio n . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11-46-9( 1) ( b) ( R ev. 2002)
. M agee r el i es on M issi ssipp i C o d e S ec ti o n 3 7 -9-6 9 as w ell as th is C o u rt ’s m an d ate that sc h o o l perso n n el are
r equi r ed t o us e or di nary car e i n admi ni s t er i ng p ub l i c school s , and “[ s ] chool s have the
r es pons i bi l i ty t o us e or di nary car e t o pr ovi de a sa f e s chool envi r onm ent . ” L . W. , 754 So. 2d
a t 1 1 4 2 -4 3 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). See al s o Pea r l Pub. Sc h. Dis t

. v. G r oner , 7 84 So. 2d 911,

### 7

9 1 5 ( M is s . 2 0 0 1 ); He n de rs o n e x re l. H e n de rs o n v. S im

p so n Co u n ty P u b . S c h . D ist. , 847 So. 2d 856, 857 ( M i s s . 2003)
. M agee ’ s r el i ance , how ever , i s m i s pl ace d. Sect i on 37- 9- 69 st at es: It sh a ll b e th e d u ty o f ea c h su p e rin ten d e n t, p rin c ip a l an d tea c h e r in th e p u b lic s chool s of

thi s s t at e t o e nf

or ce i n the s chool s the cour s es of s tudy pr es cr i bed b y law o r b y th e sta te b o a rd o f e d u c a tio n , to c o m p ly w ith th e law in dis tri bu t i on and use of f ree t extbook s, and t o o bserve and enforce the st atutes , rul es and r egul at i ons p re s cr i bed f orthe oper at i on of

s chool s . Such superi ntenden t s, pri ncipal s and teachers s hal lhold the pupi l s t o s tr i ct account fo r d iso rd e rly c o n d u c t ats chool , on the w ay t o and fr om s chool , on the playgroun ds, and du ri ng reces s. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 3 7 -9-6 9 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶10. T hi s C our th as app l i ed t his st at ute only in a li m i t ed con t ext, m ai nl y i n cas es
con cerni ng the d i sorder l y co nd uct of stud ents , or i ntent i on al act s on the partof i nd i vidual s,
a n d h a s n e v e r a p p lied it t o th e tim in g o r o v e rsi g h t o f fo o tb a ll p ra c tice . In re fe re n c e to S e c tio n 3 7 -9 -6 9 , this C o u rtstat e d th a t “[t]h is s tatu te m a n d a tes th a t sc h o o l p e rso n n e l m a in tain appr opr i at e contr ol and di s ci pl i ne of s tudent s w hi l e the chi l dr en ar e i n thei rcar e. ” L . W. , 754 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 4 2
. L .W

. in v o lv e d a s tu d e n t a s s a u lt o n a n o th e r s tu d e n t. I d. a t1142- 43. See a l

so Henders on , 8 4 7 S o . 2 d at 8 5 7 -5 8 (stu d e n t tau n ted a n d a ss a u lted b y a n o th e r stu d e n t); L ang, 7 6 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 4 0 -4 1 (fig h tin g stu d e n ts c a u se d in ju ry to in n o c e n t stu d e n t). C o n sis ten t w ith
ourcas el aw i nt erpr et i ng thi s s t atut e, and bas ed on the f act s a nd c i r cumst ance s bef or e us as
re v e a led in th e re c o rd , M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 3 7 -9 -6 9 d o e s n o t im p o se a sta tu to ry d u ty on the D i s tr i cti n t oday’ s cas e.

### 8

¶1 1. B ef

or e m ovi ng on, w e not e tha tM a ge e a s s e r t s tha tthe D i s tr i c tha s a dmi t t e d t he appl i c a bi l i ty o f

Se c t i on 37
- 9- 69 i n r e s po ns e t o h e r( M a ge e ’ s ) r e qu e s t s f ora dmi s s i on pr op ou nd e d d ur i ng di s c ov e r y. W e di s a gr e e . I n Req ue s tForA dmi s s i on N o. 12 , M a ge e
r eques t ed t he D i s tr i ctt o adm i tt hati thad “a st atut ory dut y t o provi de a s af e envi r onm entf

or i t s s tudent s , ” and the D i st ri ctadmi t t ed thi s f act . H ow ever , i n R eques tForA dm i s s i on N o. 1 7 , M ag ee req u ested the D istri ct t o ad m itthat ith ad “ a s tatu to ry d u ty to u se o rdin ary ca re i n admi ni s t er i ng publ i c s chool s and t o t ake or di nary and re as onabl e st eps t o m i ni m i ze r i s ks f ori t s s tudent s . ” I n i t s r es pons e t o thi s r eques tf oradmi s s i on, the D i s tr i cts t at ed: R e s p o n d in g to R e q u e s t N o . 1 7 , D e fe n da n t a dm its onl y t hatfr om M i s s . C ode A nn. § 37-9- 69, the C our t s of thi s s t at e have f

as hi oned a m in iste ria l du ty to m a in ta in a sa

fe e n v iro n m e n t fo r th e stu de n ts thathas been appl i ed by the C o u rt s in a lim ite d c o n te x t. . . . ( E m phas i s i n or i gi nal )
. W e have s t at ed thatM i s s i s s i ppi Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 36 “ i s t o be enf or ced a ccor di ng t o i t s t erm s . ” E duc. P lacem ent Sers . v. W

il s on , 487 So. 2d 1316, 1318 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). H o w e v e r, th is C o u rt lik e w ise h a s s tate d th a t “[w ]hile R u le 3 6 is to b e a p p lie d a s w ri tte n , it is n o t in te n d e d to b e a p p lie d in D ra c o n ia n fa s h io n .” D eB la n c v. S ta n c il , 814 So. 2d 796, 801 ( M i s s . 2002)
. T he D i s tr i ctst at es t hat , w hi l e i tw as duty- bound t o r es pond truthf ul l y t o R eques tForA dm i s s i on N o. 12, couched i n gener al l anguage , thi s admi s s i on cannotbe vi ew ed i n a vac uum , buti ns t ead mustbe r ead t ogether
w i th i t s R es pons e t o R eques tForA dm i s s i on N o. 17. C on si st entw i th D eBlanc , w e agr ee. I d. T he D i s tr i ct , w hi l e ac know l edgi ng t he exi s t ence of the pr ovi s i ons of Sect i on 37- 9- 69 and
o u r c a se law in terp re tin g th is s tatu te, lik e w ise q u a lified it s a d m iss io n th a t th e m a n d a to ry d u ty

### In i ts argume nts bef orethetria l c ourt , the Di stri ct , through counse l, st at ed that 3 

### “[ Mage e’ s couns el ] ’s a ske d us t o a dmi t in a va cuum adm is si on or de nia l c once rning gene ra l duties go vern ed b y M ississipp i law. W e do n’t d enythat there is a duty to take care of th ese st udent s, Your Honor . That woul d be f ooli sh f or us to s it

her e and sugge st

othe rwi se . What we’ resaying i s, the sespe ci fi c a ll egati ons that they ar e a ll ege d [ sic ] invo ke d iscretion ary acts as st at ed in theHar

ri s and in t

he Princ e c as e. The [ suprem e] court ha s s poken on this .” As west at ed in Ha rris , “ [w] hil e a dmi tt edly involving application of ‘pr e-Pru ett ’ 4 

### common l aw c once rning whether theac t involve d was a d isc re ti onar y or m ini st eria l func ti on, our

dec is ion in Pri

nce is enl ight ening.” Ha rris , 867 So. 2dat 19 1. See Pruett v. 9 p lac e d u p o n p u b lic s c h o o ls a n d th e ir e m p lo y e e s b y sta tu te h a s b e e n ap p lied b y th is C o u rt in a l i m i t ed cont ext . T hus , i n the end, the D i s tr i ct ’ s r es ponses t o cert ai n r eques t s f or 3 admi s s i ons ar e of

no m om entconce rni ng thi s Court ’ s de t erm i nat i on a s a mat t erof l aw on the i s s ue of w hetherSect i on 37- 9- 69 i s appl i cabl e t o t oday’ s cas e. ¶ 1 2
. M a g e e a lso a rg u e s th a t M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 3 7 -9 -1 4 g iv e s ris e to a sta tu to ry d u ty b a se d o n th e fa c ts o f th is c a se . T h is a rg u m e n t is s im p ly w ith o u t m e rit. S e c tio n 3 7 -9 -1 4 se ts fo rt h th e re sp o n sib ili ties a n d p o w e rs o f th e su p e rin ten d e n t, an d in n o w a y d o e s th is s tatu te im p ly a n y d u tie s p e rt a in in g to th e o v e rs ig h t o f a th le tic p ra c tic e s . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 37- 9 -14 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). ¶13. T he D i s tr i ctas s ert s , bas ed on both P r ince v. L ouis vil le Muni ci

pal S ch oo l

D is tr i ct , 741 So. 2d 207 ( M i s s . 1999) , and H ar r is v. McCr ay , 867 So. 2d 188 (M i s s . 2003) , thatthe D i s tr i c t ’ s a l l e ge d c on du c tw a s di s c r e t i ona ry, a nd s umm a ry j ud gmen ts ho ul d h a ve be en gr ant ed pur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 46- 9( 1) ( d)
. I n P r ince and H a rr is , this C our tdeemed the coa chi ng r es pons i bi l i t i es of coor di nat i ng and supe r vi s i ng pr act i ce t o be d is c re tio n a ry a c ts . See P r ince , 7 4 1 S o . 2 d a t 21 2 (affirm ed tri al c o u rt ’s g ran t of su m m ary 4

### City o

f Ro seda le , 42 1 S o. 2 d 1 04 6 (M iss. 19 82 ). 10 ju d g m e n t b a se d o n q u a lified im m u n ity ); H a rr is , 867 So. 2d at192- 93 ( “tr i al courtdi d not
erri n i t s det erm i nat i on thatthe School D i s tr i ctan d C oach M cC r ay w er e exe m pt ed f r om l i abi l i ty”)
. T hi s C our ts t at ed i n H a rr is : W e m u st b a lan c e the se rio u s n e g a tiv e re p e rc u ss io n s w h ich c o u ld re su lt fo r a ll ex tr a-c u rri cu lar sch o o l acti v it ies if th e d iscreti o n ary d ec isi o n s o f co ac h es a re n o t ex e m p t fro m liab ili ty p u rsu a n t to M is s. C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )(d ) w ith t he n e e d f

orp r ov i di ng a wel l
- r ou nd e d e du c a t i on . The r e i s n othi ng i n t he r ecor d t o i m pl y thatCoach M cC r ay' s a ct i ons a s a f ootbal l coac h on A ugus t21, 1995, vi ol at ed any s t atut e, or di nance , orr egul at i on. H a rr is , 867 So. 2d at192. L i kew i s e, i n t oday’ s cas e, nothi ng i n the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatt he D i s tr i ctand/ orthe f

ootbal l coac hes ( orany D i s tr i ctempl oyee ors t af f mem ber ) vi ol at ed any
s t atut e, or di nance , orr egul at i on conce rni ng conduct i ng footbal l pr act i ce, and the conduc tat issue co n sti tutes d iscreti o n ary b eh av ior. ¶14
. F u rt h er, M ag ee co n tend s tha t, even i f the act s or om i ssi on s of th e D istri ct are di s cr et i onary, they s t i l l do noti nvoke the pr ot ect i on of s oci al , e conomi c, orpol i t i cal pol i cy. T hi s C our tadopt ed the publ i c- pol i cy- f unct i on t es tand s t at ed “onl y thos e f unct i ons w hi ch by
n a tu re a re p o lic y d e c is io n s , w h e th e r m a d e a t th e o p e ra tio n a l o r p la n n in g le v e l, a re p ro te c te d .” Jones v. Mis s . D ep’t

of T r ansp. , 744 So. 2d 256, 260 ( M i s s . 1999)
. C ert ai nl y the di s cr et i onary act s ati s s ue ar e gr ounded i n publ i c pol i cy. I n the H a rr is cas e, di s cus s ed supra , thi s C our tr eas oned: W ho kn e w the f

oo tba l l pl a ye r s of

the 19 95 J e f

f e r s on County Hi gh Sc hool fo o tb all team b ett er tha n C o ac h M cC ray ? H e k n ew w h at play ers w o u ld compl ai n onl y w hen hurtand w hatpl ayer s w oul d c om pl ai n a ta dr op of a hat

### 11

s i m pl y t o be abl e t o t ake a br eak f r om f ootbal l pr act i ce on a hotA ugus tday. C o a c h e s h a v e to k n o w w h a t m o tiv a tes th e ir p lay e rs a n d w h a t d o e s n o t. C oach es kno w that i n o rdert o d i scip li ne footbal l player s, each o ne is a di f f er enthum an bei ng – one pl ayerm ay be di s ci pl i ned by a mer e s t ern l ook f r om the coa ch, w hi l e a mi l i t ary- s tyl e dr i l l s er geantc hew i ng outw i l l notf aze a no the rp l a ye r . Coac he s wi l l k no w the i rp l a ye r s wel l e no ug h t o know w ho m ay hol l er“w ol f

” an d w ho w i l l not . W hen V i ct orH arr i s compl ai ned of f eel i ng w eak a nd needi ng a w at erbr eak, C oach M cC r ay t ol d H ar ri s he w as “f aki ng i t . ” U nf

or tunat el y, he w as not . H arr i s ' s i nj ur i es a nd r es ul t i ng damages ar e nott o be tr eat ed f

l i ppant l y. H ow ever , w e ca nnotf as t - f orw ar d pas tthe fa c ts o f th is c a se a n d th e a p p lica b le la w ju s t to a rb itrar ily im p o se liab ili ty in an att empt t o r i ghta per cei ved w r ong. W hi l e the f

act s of V i ct orH arr i s ' s cas e ar e no doubtt r agi c, w e m us tre al i ze the cons equenc es of

ourdeci s i on t oday w er e w e t o f i nd C oach M cC r ay and the s chool di s tr i ctli abl e on the f act s of thi s cas e. H i gh s chool f ootbal l coac hes around t he st at e w ou l d lose theirabil i ty to contr ol theirfootball t eam s. D i s ci pl i ne of

a f ootbal l t eam w oul d be come non- exi s t ent . I f a coa ch r ef

us ed a pl ayer ' s r eques tt o have a w at erbr eak – t o s ee a t r ai ner– t o nothave t o run any more w i nd- s pr i nt s – t o nothave t o do any m or e one- on- one bl ocki ng/ t ackl i ng dr i l l s , beca us e of thatpl ayer ' s compl ai ntof “f eel i ng w eak” o r “n o t feeli n g g o o d ” o r si m p ly “n o t f ee li n g li k e it , ” tha t coa ch w o u ld b e v ery m uch aw ar e of

the f actthathe/ she w ou l d be runni ng the r i s k of bei ng su c c e ss fu lly su e d a lo n g w ith o th e r sc h o o l o ffic ials a n d th e sc h o o l d istric t, s h o u l d th a tp l a y e rl a t e rs u f f e rp h y s i c a l / m e d i c a l p r o b l e m s r e l a t e d t o th e c o a c h 's f ai l ur e t o cow t o the pl ayer ' s e very w hi m a nd w i s h. O n the otherhand, i f the c o a c h , i n f

e a ro f a s u c c e s s f

u l l a ws u i t , s h o u l d c o w t o th e p l a y e r ' s e v e ry wh i m, w i s h and demand, then the coa ch w oul d l os e the r es pectof the pl ayer s , and d isc ip lin e a n d m o ra le w o u ld b e lo st. H a rr is , 867 So. 2d at192- 93. T he D i s tr i ct ’ s di s cr et i onary deci s i on t o al l ow co aches the abil i ty to setand con du ctpract i ces i s r oo t ed in po l i cy – coach es kn ow theirplayer s and m ust be ab l e t o co ntr ol theirt eam s. ¶15. A l though thi s Courti s onc e agai n faced w i t h a d evast at i ng and t ra gi c s i tuat i on beca us e of

t he unt i m el y death of

a hi gh- s cho ol student , w e ar e cons tr ai ned t o f i nd thatt he appl i cabl e pr ovi s i ons of the M T C A “oper at ed t o s hi el d [ the D i s tr i ctand i t s coac hes and

### 12

empl oyees ] f

r om any l i abi l i t y. ” H

a rr is , 8 6 7 S o . 2 d a t 1 9 3 . T h e e x e m p tio n fro m liab ili ty fo u n d in M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )(d ) is ap p lica b le to to d a y ’s c a se . A s a re su lt, the tr i al co ur t ’ s deni al , i n part , of the D i s tr i ct ’ s m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm entm us tbe
r ever s ed. CO NC L US I ON ¶1 6. For t he r e a s on s s t a t e d, the Covi ng t on County Ci r c ui t Cour t ’ s de ni a l , i n pa r t , of t he D is tr ic t’ s m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t i s r e v e rs e d , a n d ju d g m e n t is re n d e re d h e re , in to to , in fa v o r o f th e C o v in g to n C o u n ty S c h o o l D istric t, th u s g ra n tin g su m m a ry jud g m e n t in fu ll. ¶ 1 7
. RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D. W A L L E R , C .J ., D I C K I N S O N , R A N D O L P H , L A M A R A N D P I E R C E , J J ., CO NC UR . KI T CHEN S , J . , DI S S E NT S W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI T T E N O P I NI ON J OI NED BY G RAV ES , P. J . CH AN DL ER , J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TT EN OP I NI ON. KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶18. I agr ee w i th the m aj or i ty a nd thi s Court ’ s pr ece dentthat , a s i ts t ands , coor di nat i ng and
s upervi s i ng hi gh s chool f ootbal l pr act i ce a r e di s cr et i onary act s w i thi n the meani ng of M is s is s ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )( d ). P rin c e v. L o u isv ille Mu n . S c h . D ist. , 741 So. 2d 2 0 7 (M iss . 1 9 9 9 ); H

ar r is v. McCr ay , 8 6 7 S o . 2 d 1 8 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 3 ). H o w e v e r, I re sp e c tfu lly di s s entf r om the maj or i ty opi ni on ’ s concl us i on thatthe di s cr et i onary act s ati s s ue i n t he p re se n t ca se w e re g ro u n d e d in so c ial, e c o n o m ic, o r p o lit ica l p o licy , w h ic h w o u ld h a v e to have be en the ca s e i n or derf ors t atut ory i m m uni ty t o appl y.

### 13

¶1 9. I ti s wel l
- s e t t l e d tha tM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 11- 46- 9( 1) ( d) does not bes t ow im m u n ity fo r a ll d is c re tio n a ry g o v e rn m e n ta l a c ts . See, e. g. , Jo n es v. Miss. D ep’t o f Tran sp ., 7 4 4 S o . 2 d 2 5 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 ); Stew ar t v. Cit y of Jacks on , 8 0 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ); H arris v. McCr ay , 867 So. 2d 188 ( M i s s . 2004) ; M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 9( 1) ( d) ( R ev. 2002)
. “[ O ] nl y thos e f

unct i ons w hi ch by natur e ar e pol i cy dec i s i ons , w hetherm ade att he
o p e r a tio n a l o r p la n n in g le v e l, a re p ro te c te d .” S tew art , 804 So. 2d at1048 ( quot i ng Jo nes , 7 4 4 S o . 2 d at 2 6 0 ). T h e re fo re , it m u st b e d e ter m in e d “w h e th e r th e [dis c re tio n a ry c o n d u c t] i nvol ved s oci al , economi c orpol i t i cal pol i cy” be f or e a di s cr et i onary actqual i f i es f or im m u n ity p u rs u a n t to S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -9
. S tew art , 804 So. 2d a t1047 ( quot i ng Jones , 744 So. 2 d a t 1 6 0 ); M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -9 (R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). ¶20. I n thi s cas e, i n orde rt o deci de w hetherqual i f i ed i m m uni ty purs uantt o Sect i on 11- 46- 9 appl i es t o t he s chool di s tr i ctand i t s coac hes , i tm us tbe det erm i ned w hethert he di s cr et i onary act s orom i s s i ons w hi ch l ed t o t he t r agi c dea th of L onni e M agee w er e gr ounded in s o c ia l, e c o n o m ic , o r p o litic a l p o lic y . Jones , 744 So. 2d at261. ¶ 2 1
. Stew ar t

v. Ci t y of Jacks on , 804 So. 2d 1041 ( M i s s . 2002) , i s hel pf ul i n m aki ng s uch a det erm i nat i on. T he pl ai nt i f f i n S tew a rt al l eged thats he f el l and w as i nj ur ed w hen a bus d ri v e r e m p lo y e d b y th e C ity o f J a c k s o n fa ile d to a s s is t h e r in to a n a d u lt d a y -c a re c e n te r. Id
. a t 10 4 7 -4 8
. T h e p lain tiff co n ten d e d tha t, a lth o u g h the d e fe n d a n t b u s d riv e r w a s a c tin g w ith d isc re tio n w h e n sh e d e c id e d n o t to a ss ist th e p lain tiff in to th e a d u lt d a y -c a re c e n ter , the a c ts
o r o m iss io n s o f th e C ity o f Ja c k so n a n d th e b u s d riv e r w e re n o t p o licy -b a se d , an d th a t, th e re fo re , th e C ity o f J a c k s o n w a s n o t im m u n e p u rs u a n t to S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -9
. Id . a t 1 0 4 8
.

### 14

¶22. T hi s C our tagr eed w i th the pl ai nti ff , n oti ng thatit“m us tdi s t i ngui s h betw een r eal pol i cy dec i s i ons i m pl i cat i ng governm ent al f unct i ons and s i m ple act s of negl i gence w hi ch i nj ur e i nnocentci t i zens . ” I d. ( quot i ng G ale v. T

hom as , 7 5 9 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 0 , 1 1 6 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )). T he C our thel d that , beca us e the ac t s orom i s s i ons of the ci ty’ s bus dri verdi d noti nvol ve r eal pol i cy dec i s i ons i mpl i c a t i ng go ve r nm ent al f unct i ons , the M i s s i s s i ppi T or tC l ai m s A ctdi d not
a ff o rd im m u n ity p ro te c tio n to th e C ity o f J a c k s o n . I d . ¶23. H er e, i tcannotbe det erm i ned w hetherthe def endant ’ s di s cr et i onary act s w er e r oot ed i n p oli cy, becau se the record do es not contai n suff i cien t i n form at i on . G i ven that this case i s bef or e us by w ay of

i nt er l ocut ory appeal fr om a par t i al deni al of s um m ary j udgm ent , the pl ai nt i f f has notha d s uf

f i ci entoppor tuni ty t o di s coverexac t l y w hatact s orom i s s i ons , i f any,
caus ed orcontr i but ed t o the s udden demi s e of L onni e M agee . T he r ecor d i s i ncompl et e, as nei therthe pl ai nt i f

f nort hi s C ourtk no w s w hatthe coa ches di d ordi d notdo on the day of L o n n ie ’s d e a th
. ¶24. T hi s C our t cannot rul e out that s om e di s cr et i onary conduct by s om e athl et i c coa ches
m ay be compar abl e t o thatof the bus dr i veri n S tew art : nei therr oot ed i n s oci al , economi c,
norpol i t i cal pol i cy norcont empl at ed by the Legi s l atur e w hen i tenac t ed the M T C A
. G i ven thi s C our t ’ s pr ece dentand t he l i m i t ed r ecor d bef or e us, I am unabl e t o det erm i ne w hethert he
r el evantact s orom i s s i ons of the s chool di s tr i cta nd the coac hes of M ountO l i ve A t t endanc e C ent erw er e r oot ed i n s oci al , e conomi c, orpol i t i cal pol i cy. I w oul d hol d thatthe tr i al j udge di d note rri n denyi ng the s chool di s tr i ct ’ s s um m ary j udgm entm ot i on, and I w oul d r emand th e c a s e fo r f

u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s .

### 15

GRAVE S , P . J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON. CH AN DL E R, J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶2 5
. I resp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. B e c a u se I b eli ev e the tr ial co u rtp rop erly d en ied su m m ary ju d g m e n t at th is s tag e o f th e lit ig a tio n , I w o u ld a ffirm th e trial c o u rt. I. ¶ 2 6
. M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -9 p ro v id e s th a t a s tate g o v e rn m e n tal e n tity a n d its
e m p lo y e e s s h a ll n o t b e liab le f o r a n y c laim w h ile a c tin g w ith in the co u rse an d sc o p e o f th e ir empl oym entand dut i es . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 9( 1) ( R ev. 2002)
. T he s t atut e pr ovi des for im m u n ity , in p art, for a claim “ [a] ri sing o u t of an y ac t or o m issi o n o f an em p loy ee o f a gov e rnmen t a l e nt i ty e xe r c i s i ng o r di na ry c a r e i n r e l i a nc e u po n, o ri n the e xe c ut i on or p e rf o rm a n c e o f, o r i n th e fa ilu re to e x e c u te o r p e rf o rm , a s ta tu te , o rd in a n c e o r r e g u la tio n .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )( b ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ). A s th e m a jo ri ty c o rr e c tly h o ld s , a governm ent al ent i ty and i t s empl oyees have i m m uni ty, pr ovi ded thator di nary car e i s us ed
w h e n p e rf

o rm in g a d u ty u n d e r a s ta tu te , o rd in a n c e , o r r e g u la tio n . H ar r is v. McCr ay , 867 So. 2d 188, 189 ( M i ss. 2 00 3); M i s s . C ode A nn. § 11- 46- 9( 1) ( b) ( R ev. 2002)
. Sect i on 11- 46- 9( 1) ( d) pr ovi des i m m uni ty fordi s cr et i onary act s per f or m ed w i thi n t he cour s e and s cope of
e m p lo y m e n t. T h e im m u n ity is “ [b ]as e d u p o n th e e x e rc ise o r p e rfo rm a n c e o r th e fa ilu re to
exer ci s e orper f

or m a di s cr et i onary f

unct i on orduty on the partof a governm ent al ent i ty or
e m p lo y e e th e re o f, w h e th e r o r n o t t h e d is c r e tio n b e a b u s e d .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 -46 -9(1 )(d) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ).

### 16

¶ 2 7
. T h is C o u rt h a s d is tin g u is h e d w h a t c o n s titu te s m in is te ri a l a n d d is c re tio n a ry a c ts . A
m i ni s t er i al act i s a duty that“has been pos i t i vel y i m pos ed by l aw and i t s per f or m ance
r equi r ed ata t i m e and i n a m annerorunde rc ondi t i ons w hi ch ar e s peci f i cal l y de s i gnat ed, t he d u ty t o p e r f

o r m u n d e rth e c o n d i t i o n s s p e c i f i e d n o tb e i n g d e p e n d e n tu p o n th e o f f i c e r 's j udgm entordi s cr et i on. ” D ancy v. East Mis s . State H

os p. , 944 So. 2d 10, 16 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng L .W

. v. Mc Co m b S e

p a ra te M u n . S c h . D ist. , 7 5 4 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 4 1 (M iss. 1 9 9 9 )). On th e o th e rh a n d , “ [ a ] d u ty i s d i s c r e t i o n a ry i f i tr e q u i r e s th e o f

f i c i a l t o u s e h e ro wn j udgm entand di s cr et i on i n the per f or m ance t her eof

. ” Id
. ( quot i ng T

.M . v. N o b litt , 650 So. 2 d 1 3 4 0 , 1 3 4 3 (M is s . 1 9 9 5 ))
. ¶2 8
. In o rde r t o d eterm ine w h ethe r the c o n d u ct at i ssu e is d iscreti o n ary in n ature , this C o u rt has i m part ed a tw o- pr ong t es t . T he tw o- pr ong t es tt o det erm i ne w hetherthe governm ent al conducti s di s cr et i onary i s : ( 1) does the conduc ti nvol ve an e l ementof choi ce orj udgm ent on the p artof

the ent i ty orempl oyee; and i f s o, ( 2) does the choi ce orj udgm enti nvol ve
s o c ia l, e c o n o m ic , o r p o litic a l p o lic y . D ancy , 9 4 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 6 ; B r idges v. P ear l R i verV al ley W a terS u p p ly D ist. , 7 9 3 S o . 2 d 5 8 4 , 5 8 8 (M is s . 2 0 0 1 ). II. ¶29. M agee cl ai m s , i n part , thatthe D i s tr i cthad a duty t o pr ovi de a s af e envi r onm entf

or its stu d e n ts p u rsu a n t t o M iss iss ip p i C o d e S e c tio n s 3 7 -9 -6 9 a n d 1 1 -4 6 -9 (1 )(b ). T h e m a jo rity opi ned that“[ s ] ect i on 37- 9- 14 s et s f or th the r es pons i bi l i t i es an d po w er s of the
s uper i nt endent , and i n no w ay does thi s s t atut e i nf erany dut i es pert ai ni ng t o the over s i ght
o f a th le tic p ra c tic e s .”

### 17

¶30
. S ect i on 37 -9- 69 provides: It sh a ll b e th e d u ty o

f ea c h su p e rin ten d e n t, pr in c ip a l a n d tea c h e r in th e p u b lic s chool s of this s tat e t o enf

or ce i n t he s chool s the cour s es of s tudy pr es cr i bed b y law o r b y the sta te b o a rd o f ed u c a tio n , to co m p ly w ith th e la w in di s tr i but i on and us e of

f r ee t extbooks , and t o obs erve and enforce the st atut es, ru les a n d

re g u la tio n s p re sc rib e d fo r th e o

p e ra tio n o

f sc h o o ls
. Such s uper i nt endent s , pr i nci pal s and t eac her s s hal l hol d t he pupi l s t o s tr i ctacc ount f ordi s or der l y conductatscho ol, on the w ay t o and f r om s chool , on the playgroun ds, and du ri ng reces s. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 37- 9- 69 ( R ev. 2007) ( emphasi s added ). W hi l e the s t atut e does not
e x p licitly d e fin e th e d u ties o f a su p e rin ten d e n t, pr in c ip a l, or tea c h e r to o v e rse e a th letic pr act i ces , the s t atut e does provi de t hatt hey m us t“enf or ce the s t atut es , rul es and r egul at i ons p re s c ri b e d fo r t h e o p e ra tio n o f s c h o o ls .” M is s . C o d e A n n . § 3 7 -9 -6 9
. ¶31. T he C our tof

A pp eal s i n D ott

s v. P at H ar r is on W

ater w ay D is tr i ct , 933 So. 2d 322, 324 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) , hel d thatan empl oyee’ s dut i es ar e dee m ed mi ni s t er i al i f l ocal agenc y rul es i m pos e s peci f i c gui des t o be f

ol l ow ed. I n D o tts , t he mot herof a dec eas ed boy b r o u g h ta wr o n g f

u l
- d e a th a c t i o n a g a i n s tth e P a tHa rr i s o n W a t e r wa y Di s tr i c t( P HW D) p u rsua n t t o the M issi ssipp i T o rt s C laim A c t (M T C A ) after his dro w n ing d ea th at D u n n ’s F a lls
. Id
. at324. T he C our tof A ppeal s uphel d the tr i al court ’ s f i ndi ng thatPH W D had no
s t atut ory obl i gat i on f

orthe oper at i on of

i t s sw i m m i ng f

aci l i ty beca us e M i s s i s s i ppi had no
s ta tu te in p la c e . Id
. at326. H ow ever , t he t r i al courtdi d notend i t s anal ys i s atthi s j unctur e. ¶32. I n D o tts , the tr i al court al s o cons i der ed PH W D ’ s act i ons i n r egar d t o the oper at i on of its fa c ility
. D o tts , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 3 2 6 . “ [T ]he tria l co u rt fo u n d th a t P H W D h a d d isc re tio n in
m aki ng j udgm ent s r egar di ng the exe r ci s e of i t s pow er s and f

unct i ons i n oper at i ng” the

### 18

s w im m in g fa c ility
. Id
. P H W D h a d a w ri tte n , s w im m in g p o lic y in p la c e . Id
. at 3 2 6 -27
. In its a n a ly sis o f w h e th e r th e a c tiv ity w a s d isc re tio n a ry in n a tu re , the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
s um m ar i zed the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on by s t at i ng: T h e p ark m an ag er o f D u n n ' s F all s at the tim e o f H o ll y ' s ac cide n t w as R afo rd W i l l i am s. H e w as the onl y empl oyee on duty thatday. A l though the tr i al co u rtfou n d that the P H W D w as u ti li zing a d isc reti o n ary fun cti o n , the c o u rt h e ld th a t W

i l l i am s di d nothave any dis cr et i on r egar di ng the operat i on of D u n n 's Fa lls. B e c a u se o f PH W D 's p o licy , W

ill ia m s' a c tio n s w e re m in iste ria l. T her ef or e, any evi dence of

W i l l i ams' know l edge thatthe bac k buoy l i ne w as m i s s i ng orknow l edge thatthe s w i m m i ng ar ea' s con f i gur at i on had cha nged w oul d be vi ol at i ons of

the pol i ci es of

PH W D thatw oul d tr i ggerl i abi l i ty under th e M T CA
. Id
. at 32 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶3 3. T he C our tof

A ppe a l s a l s o up he l d the tr i a l j udge’ s f i ndi ng of

f act conce r ni ng
c o n fl ic tin g e v id e n c e . Id
. at327. I n otherw or ds , the C our tof A ppeals u ph el d t he tr i al
court ’ s det erm i nat i on thatw hi l e PH W D had di s c r e t i on i n a do pt i ng i t s po l i c y c on c erni ng rul es fo r p u b lic s w im m in g a re a s, its e m p lo y e e h a d n o d isc re tio n , an d th e e m p lo y e e ’s c o n d u c t in im p le m e n tin g th e p o lic y w a s m in is te ri a l in n a tu re . Id
. Fur ther , any know l edge the empl oyee had thata ny act i vi ty orci r cumst ance s w as contr ary t o the pol i cy w oul d have be en a vi ol at i on
o f th e p o li c y th a t w o u ld h a v e e x p o s e d P H W D to lia b ility p u rs u a n t to th e M T C A
. Id
. In D o tts , the empl oyee ove r s eei ng the s w i m m i ng faci l i ty di ed pr i ort o t aki ng a depos i t i on, ther ef or e, the tr i al cour td et erm i ned thatthe i s s ue of w hetherthe empl oyee ha d actual k n o w led g e o f th e sw im m in g co n d iti o n s c o u ld n o t be d e ter m in e d a n d P H W D w a s n o t li a b le in th a t c a s e . Id . A s n o te d , a b o v e , th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls u p h e ld th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d e c is io n . Id
.

### Both Ha rrisand Pri nce involved injur

y to a st udent during a s choolathle ti cs 5 

### pro gram. 19 ¶ 3 4
. H e re , th e d isc o v e ry c o n d u c ted w a s in c o m p lete
. F u rth e r, d isc o v e ry is re q u ire d in th is
c a se to a llo w th e p a rties tim e to c o m p lete d e p o sitio n s a t a m in im u m . T h is c a se is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f

r o m H a rr is and P r ince v. L ouis vil le Muni ci

pal S chool D is tr i ct , 741 So. 2d 207 ( M i s s . 1999) , be caus e the i s s ue of w hethera s t atut e, r egul at i on, orrul e w as vi ol at ed w as notcons i der ed by the C our ti n ei therof thos e ca s es . A tb est , the re cor d r evea l s a copy of

5 the M i s s i s s i ppi H i gh School A ct i vi t i es A s s oci at i on, I nc. ( M H SA A ) handbook, w hi ch pert ai ns t o the r egul at i ons of hi gh s chool s por t i ng act i vi ty. I ndeed, thi s C our thas r ecogni zed the M H SA A handbook as bei ng a handbook that“r egul at es and pr ovi des gui del i nes f orthe
s chool s t o f

ol l ow . ” P ear l

P ub. Sch. D is t

. v. G r oner , 7 8 4 S o . 2 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 1 ). ¶35. Fur ther , the part i es have nothad an opportuni ty t o det erm i ne, f ori ns t ance, w hethe r the C ovi ngt on C ount y School D i s tr i cthas a county oper at i onal pol i cy s i m i l art o t he w r i t t en, oper at i onal pol i cy i n pl ace i n D o tts and w hetherith as operat i on al proced ures f or athlet i cs. P ro v id e d th e D istric t h a d a w ritten , o p e ra tio n a l p o licy in p lac e , the su p e rin ten d e n t, pr in c ip a l, and t eac her s , i ncl udi ng coac hes , had a duty t o e nf or ce a ny rul e orr egul at i on pert ai ni ng t o t he
o p e ra tio n o f th e s c h o o ls in th e d is tr ic t. See M i ss. C od e A nn . § 3 7-9-69 (R ev. 20 07 ). T hese
rul es and r egul at i ons of t en ar e i n t he f

or m of a s chool di s tr i ct ’ s oper at i onal pol i cy. ¶36. U nl i ke D o tts , how ever , M i s s i s s i ppi has a s t atut e f or s chool per s onnel , Sect i on 37- 9- 6 9 , w h ich sta tes in p a rt th a t “ [ i ] ts hal lbe the dut

y o f ea ch super i nt endent

, pr i nci paland t eache ri n the publ i c s chool s of this s tat e . . . to obs er ve and e nf or ce the s tat ut es , r ul es and

### 20

re g u la tio n s p re sc rib e d

forth e o p e ra tio n o

f sc h o o ls
. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 3 7 -9-6 9 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e tri al co u rtrec o g n ized that total sum m ary jud g m en t i n fav o r of the D istri ct w as p rem ature gi ven the ea r l y s t age of the ca s e. U phol di ng the tr i al court ’ s deci s i on al l ow s the part i es an oppor tuni ty t o di s coverw hetherthe D i s tr i ctha d any county oper at i onal pol i cy i n pl ace , w hat the p o li cy stat ed in reg ard t o athleti cs, and w h ethe r th e p roc ed u res w ere foll o w ed
. F u rth er, it p ro v id e s a n o p p o rtu n ity to d e p o se a p p ro p ria te p e rso n n e l. ¶ 3 7
. T h is c a s e h a s im p lic a tio n s o f b o th m in is te ri a l a n d d is c re tio n a ry fu n c tio n s . See D o tts , 9 3 3 S o . 2 d a t 3 2 6 -2 7 . P ro v id e d th e D istric t h a d a c o u n ty o p e ra tio n a l p o licy , the D istric t,
s im ila r to th e P H W D , w o u ld h a v e u s e d d is c re tio n in m a k in g th e p o lic y . Id
. at327. A s chool d istric t’s o p e ra tio n a l po licy , w h ich is pr o m u lg a ted in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e b o a rd ’s a u th o rity found i n S ect i on 37 -9- 67 , w ou l d h ave to be revi ew ed to det erm i ne w hetherthe em ployees,
s uc h a s the s up e r i nt e nd e nt , pr i nc i pa l , t e a c he r s , a nd c oa c he s , w e r e i mpl e ment i ng a nd fo llo w in g it o n th e d a te o f th is tra g ic in c id e n t. Id
. at327. C ons equent l y, the i s s ue of w hether th e p e rso n n e l h a d o n ly a m in iste ria l fu n c tio n a n d e ith e r fo llo w e d th e p o licy o r k n o w in g ly di s r egar ded the pol i cy al s o w oul d have t o be det erm i ned thr ough depos i t i ons and other d is c o v e ry . Id
. B eca us e of thi s , t he t r i al cour tcor r ect l y det erm i ned thats um m ary j udgm ent on al l i s s ues w as pr ematur e. D i s covery i s cr i t i cal t o det er m i ne w hetherthe D i s tr i cthad i nf or m at i on s uch as an oper at i onal pol i cy, w hatthe pol i cy t erm s st at ed, and w hether per s onnel f

ol l ow ed the pol i cy orknow i ngl y di s r egar ded the pol i cy. I I I . ¶38. Forthe above r eas ons , I di s s entw i th the maj or i ty’ s opi ni on t oday.