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 5 - CA- 0 2 3 2 8 - S CT M ALI KAH GLOVER, BY AND THROUGH H ER PAR ENTSAND NEXT OF KI N, GREGUICK GLOVER AND S

ANDRA GLOVER
v. J ACK SON STATE UN

I VER SITY ON M OTI ON F OR RE HEAR I NG D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 23/ 2005 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. BO BBY BU RT D ELAU GH TER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A TTO RN EY S FO R A PPELL A N T: RO BE RT FA RL EY W I LK I N S BA RR Y W
. HOW AR D J E NNI F E R P AI GE W I L KI NS ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: BA RRY DO UG LAS H ASSELL M I CHAEL W AYN E BAXTE R NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 12/ 06/ 2007 M O T I O N FO R R E H E A R I N G FI L E D : 08/ 30/ 2007 M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he m oti on f

or r eheari ng i s den i ed. T he ori ginal opini on s are w i thd raw n, and t hese
o p inion s are su b sti tuted there for. ¶2. T hi s f

our t een- year - ol d c as e has a c ur i ous a nd i nt er es t i ng hi s t ory w hi ch w i l l notend
w ith to d a y ’s d e c isio n . T h e m a tter p re s e n te d fo r re v iew is a su m m a ry ju d g m e n t g ra n ted to J acks on St at e U ni ver s i ty (“ J SU ”) i n a sui tfordam ages caus ed t o a f our t een- year - ol d gi r l w hoTh e trial court ch ara cte riz ed this vio len ce a s “a do les cent ho rseplay. ” This de scriptiveter m 1 see m s h ardly c on sis tent w iththec ourt’ s duty – wh enc on sideringa s um m ary judgm ent moti on

– to view the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. 

### 2 w as r aped by tw o f

i f t een- year - ol d boys on JSU ’ s campus. T he i s s ue pr es ent ed and br i ef ed by the p art i es i s w hetherJSU bears any legal res po nsi bil i ty for the rapes. F ACT UAL BA CKGROUND ¶3
. T he N at i onal Youth Spo r t s Pr og r a m ( “ N Y SP” ) w as es t abl i s hed i n 1969 f or t he purpo se of

pr ovi di ng s por t s pr ogr ams f oreconomi cal l y di s advant aged c hi l dr en ac r os s t he U n ited S tate s . T h e N Y S P o p e ra tes u n d e r th e a u sp ice s o f th e N a tio n a l C o lleg iate A th letic A s s oci at i on t o adm i ni s t erf eder al f undi ng and pr ovi de gui del i nes t o 160 i ns t i tut i ons of hi gher edu cat i on w hich, i n turn, ho stand op erat e t he p rogram s. ¶4
. Fors e ve r a l y e a r s u p t o a nd i nc l ud i ng 1 99 3, J SU ho s t e d, s t a f f e d, a nd op e r a t e d a N Y SP pr ogr am on i t s campus. J SU e m pl oyee L
. V
. D onnel l s erved as A ct i vi ty D i r ect orof the 1993 N Y SP progr am atJ SU
. L ohor ace C annada and C hr i s C has e, both f i f t een ye ar s ol d, had p a rticip a ted in th e p ro g ra m a t JS U fo r se v e ra l y e a rs. B o th b o y s h a d b e e n in v o lv e d in
num er ous f

i ght s on the N Y SP bus and on t he J SU campus. I n 1992, C annada w as expel l ed 1 f r om the N Y SP progr am becaus e of hi s f i ght i ng. Chase al s o had bee n i nvol ved i n num er ous f i g h t s , p r o mp t i n g th e s t a f f t o th r e a t e n t o e x p e l h i m f r o m th e p r o g r a m. ¶5. T he N Y SP bus w as l eas ed t o J SU by C
. H
. E pps , and w as dr i ven by the dr i verf ort he N Y SP progr am, D ougl as L us t er , w ho pi cked up the chi l dr en eac h day. L us t eral s o w or ked i n the N Y S P pr ogr am on t he J SU campus a s a Seni orA i de. L us t ert es t i f i ed thathe w as
a w a re o f th e tw o b o y s’ v io len t h isto ry . H e a lso te stifie d th a t h is m o st im p o rta n t jo b w a s to
s upervi s e the chi l dr en i n the N Y SP progr am. J SU had i ns truct ed that , onc e the chi l dr en gotCann ad a is on e o f t hetw o b oy s who lat er p lea de d guilty to ra ping G lov er o n th e F rid ay 2 fo llo wingtheinc ident in th e b oy s’ b athroo m , le adingto t his law suit. 

### 3 on t he bus, he w as re s pons i bl e f ordel i ver i ng t he chi l dr en t o J SU , and thatthe pr ogr am w as
res po nsi ble f

or the ch i l dren fr om the ti m e t hey bo arded t he b us. ¶ 6
. O n M o n d a y , Ju n e 1 4 , 1 9 9 3 , th e c h ild re n w e re a ss e m b led in th e A th letic a n d A ss e m b ly C ent er( “A A C ”) on the J SU campus. O ne of t he boys appr oache d L us t ert o i nf or m hi m t hat a gi r l w as i n the boys ’ r es tr oom . Lust erw entt o the hal l w ay out s i de the r es tr oom and f ound f o u r t e e n - y e a r - o l d M a l i k a h Gl o v e ra n d a n o t h e rgi r l s t a n d i n g o u t s i d e th e b o y s ’ r e s tr o o m. W hen both gi r l s deni ed bei ng i n the boys ’ r es tr oom , L us t eror der ed eve ryone t o cl eart he hal l w ay, butconduct ed no f ur theri nves t i gat i on, even though the boy w ho had r eport ed the in c id e n t co n tin u e d to in sis t th a t th e g ir ls w e re n o t tellin g th e tru th . C a n n a d a w a s la ter to 2 t es t i f y thathe and G l overhad, i n f act , been i n the boys ’ bathr oom havi ng s ex on that
occa s i on. ¶7. C annada t es t i f

i ed that , atar ound 7: 00 a. m . on the morni ng of Fr i day, J une 18, 1993, th e b u s ( wi th Lu s t e rd r i v i n g ) p i c k e d h i m u p i n f r o n to f h i s h o u s e t o t a k e h i m t o th e p r o g r a m. C has e and G l overw er e on the bus
. C annada s t ood nextt o L us t er , and they t al ked as he dr ove the bus t o the J SU campus. I n addi t i on t o L us t er ’ s know l edge thatboth C annada and C has e had a vi ol enthi s t ory, t he r ecor d al s o r ef l ect s that , dur i ng the t en mont hs pr ece di ng t he
r ape, s i xty- thr ee cr i m es w er e r eport ed t o have oc curr ed on the J SU campus, tw enty- one of
w hi ch w er e vi ol entcr i m es and f ourof w hi ch w er e r ape a nd s exual batt ery. ¶ 8
. Ac c o r d i n g t o Ca n n a d a , Lu s t e r a rr i v e d o n c a mp u s wi th th e c h i l d r e n a r o u n d 7 : 3 0 a . m. and dr opped t hem off

atthe A A C bui l di ng, w her e the boys ’ r es tr oom i nci denthad occ ur r edSe e Glover I, 755 So. 2d at 404-05. 3 

### 4 on the pr evi ous M onday. H ow ever , upon l earni ng thathe had dr opped the chi l dr en of f att he
w ron g b u il d ing , h e told th e m to g e t b ac k o n the b u s. L u ster did n o t no ti ce that G lov er, C annada , and Cha s e di d n otge tba c k o n the bu s . Lea vi ng the thr e e c hi l dr e n b e hi nd
u n a t t e n d e d a n d u n s u p e r v i s e d , L u s t e rd r o v e a wa y , t a k i n g th e o th e rc h i l d r e n t o th e o l d g y m,
w her e the chi l dr en w er e suppos ed t o be. Soon t her eaf t er , C annada and C has e t ook G l over into a b u il d ing an d rap ed h er. A ft er G lo v e r r e p o rt ed the ra p e, C an n ad a a n d C h ase w ere
arr es t ed, and both boys pl eade d gui l ty. ¶9. N otw i ths t andi ng thati t s ow n bus dri ver had l eftt he thr ee chil dren on cam pu s, unatt ended an d unsupervi s ed, J SU i nf or m ed par ent s by l ett erdat ed J une 21, 1993, ( thr ee days a f t erthe r ape occurr ed) thatthey s houl d notdr op of f thei rchi l dr en on the J SU campus bef or e 10: 30 a. m . beca use JS U had no s upervi s i on ors ecur i ty pr i ort o thatt i m e. Fur therm or e, the N C A A i nf or m ed J SU by l ett erdat ed J une 28, 1993, thati tw as i n vi ol at i on
o f f e d e r a l g u i d e l i n e s wi th r e s p e c tt o p r o p e rs t a f f i n g o f th e NYS P p r o g r a m a tJ S U. P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶10. T he pr ocedur al hi s t ory of thi s c as e w as s etf

or th i n m et i cul ous det ai l s even ye ar s ago i n P r es i di ng Jus t i ce W al l er ’ s m aj or i ty opi ni on i n G loverv. Jacks on State U ni v. , 755 So. 2d 3 9 5 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ) (“ G lover I ” )
. G l ov e rf

i l e d s ui ta ga i ns tnu mer ou s de f e nd a nt s , i nc l udi ng E pps , L us t er , and J SU
. A l l the def endant s have be en di s m i s s ed by s um m ary j udgm entand
co ll ateral estop p el, w ith the e x ce p ti o n o f JS U , an d this C o u rt re v e rse d the s u m m ary 3 ju d g m e n t g ra n ted to JS U , an d re m a n d e d to th e trial c o u rt

### 5

f ora det erm i nat i on of the l i abi l i ty of J SU , such l i abi l i ty bei ng cont i ngentupon w h ethe r JS U h ad in effec t a po li cy o f li ab il ity insu ran ce w h ich w o u ld co v er a t ortsui tforG l ov er’ s i njur i es. Id
. at404- 05. I n r eac hi ng i t s concl us i on, the G lover I m aj or i ty not ed thatG l over ’ s i nj ur i es
occurr ed on J une 18, 1993, pr i ort o the w ai verof s over ei gn i m m uni ty f

orthe sta te a n d its p o lit ica l su b d iv isio n s. T h e T o rt C laim s A c t to o k eff e c t in A p ril, 1993, buti m m uni ty w as notw ai ved f orthe s t at e unt i l J ul y 1, 1993. T her ef or e, thi s cas e i s governed by G ress ett v. N ew ton S epa rate Mu n . S ch . D ist . , 697 So. 2d 44 4 ( M i s s . 19 97 )
. I n G re ss e tt , thi s C our thel d thata s chool di s tr i ctw as i m m une f

r om s ui ti n a t or tthatar os e af t erthe A pr i l 1993 dat e of the M issi ssipp i T o rtC lai m s A ct, b u t be fore im m u n ity w as w aive d for the stat e’s p o litic a l s u b d iv is io n s o n O c to b e r 1 , 1 9 9 3
. Id
. at446. H ow ever , ou r holdi ng i n G re ss e tt is te m p e re d b y th e re c e n t d e c isio n in L in c o ln Co u n ty S c h . D is t. v . D o e, 7 4 9 S o . 2 d 9 4 3 ( M i s s . 1 9 9 9 ) , wh e r e we hel d that , pur s uantt o § 11- 46- 16( 2) of the TortC l ai m s A ct , a gover nm ent al en ti ty w h ich h as in e ffect a p o li cy o f li ab il ity insu ran ce w h ich co v ers the to rt s ued upon w i l l w ai ve i m m uni ty t o the ext entof the l i abi l i ty cover age. 755 So. 2d at400. ¶11. I n br i ef

i ng G lover I, J SU di d notdeny thata pol i cy of l i abi l i ty i ns ur ance w as i n f or ce, butr atherar gued thatthe pol i cy “w as notpr ovi ded f ororappr oved by the B oar d of T rus t ees
o f S tate In stitu tio n s o f H ig h e r L e a rn in g ,” b u t th a t it“ w a s p ro v id e d b y th e N a tio n a l Y o u th Spor t s Pr ogr am as pa r tof the agr eementbet w een i tand J SU
. ” Id
. at 40 1
. T h is C o u rt
re j ect ed J SU ’ s ar gum ent , f i ndi ng thats uch appr oval w as notr equi r ed f orthe w ai verof im m u n ity p ro v id e d u n d e r S e c tio n 1 1 -4 6 -1 6 (2 ) o f t h e M is s is s ip p i C o d e . Id
. T he G lover I C our tthen poi nt ed outthat“the i s s ue of w hethert he i ns ur ance pol i cy i n di s put e w oul d cover G lo v e r’s in

ju rie s w a s n o t ad d re ss e d b y th e trial c o u rt a n d , the re fo re , [w a s] n o t p ro p e rly bef or e thi s C our t. . . . ” Id . T h u s , w e re m a n d e d “ to th e tr ia l c o u rt f o r s u c h a d e te rm in a tio n .” Id
.

### 6

¶12. W i th r es pectt o t he s ui tagai ns tL us t erand Epps, the G lover I m aj or i ty not ed: B efo re G lov er’s third co m p lain t w as fil ed , E p p s’ l iabili ty insu ran ce ca rri er, N at i onal Fi r e & M ar i ne I ns ur ance C om pany, fi l ed a de cl ar at ory j udgm ent act i on ( C i vi l A ct i on N o. 3: 96cv176B N ) i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tf or the Sout hern D i s tr i ctof

M i s s i s s i ppi , J acks on D i vi s i on, a gai ns tE pps d/b/ a A ce R e n tal S e rv ice , L u ste r a n d G lo v e r. N a tio n a l F ire c laim e d th a t it s p o licy d id n o tp r o v i d e c o v e r a g e t o Ep p s f o rth e p a y me n to rd e f

e n s e o f Gl o v e r ’ s c l a i ms i n s t at e court . U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge W i l l i am H
. Barbour , J r. , grant ed N at i onal Fi r e’ s m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent , rul i ng thatN at i onal F i r e w as n o t li a b le to G lo v e r a n d h a d n o d u ty to d e fe n d E p p s a n d L u ste r in th e sta te act i ons . Judge B arbours t at ed, “G l overhas s ubm i t t ed no evi dence thatthe bus dr i vercoul d have f

or es een thatthe mal e s tudent s on the bus w oul d r ape G l over w hen he tr ans por t ed the youths t o the w r ong l ocat i on. I n the pr es entcas e, the C our tf i nds thatno j ury c oul d r eas onabl y f i nd thatthe i nt erveni ng cr i m i nal act w as f or es eea bl e. ” N

a tio n a l Fire & M

a rin e In s. C o . v . E

p p s, e t a l., N o. 3: 96cv176B N ( S. D
. M i s s . ) , af f’ d m em. , 127 F. 3d 35 ( 5 C i r . 1997). A f t erthe th f eder al c our tmade the rul i ng, Epps and L us t era dded r es j ud i cat a and/ or c o llate ra l es to p p e l cla im s to th e ir m o tio n s fo r su m m a ry jud g m e n t p e n d in g in stat e c o u rt . Ju d g e H il b u rn g ra n ted all the d efe n d an ts’ m o ti o n s for su m m ary j udgm ent , f

r om w hi c h rul i ng G l overappea l s . J udge H i l burn deni ed the mot i on t o change the di s m i s s al of the cons ol i dat ed ca s es t o one w i th pr ej udi ce a nd/ or aw ard att o rne y fee s, from w h ich ru li n g d efe n d a n ts a p p ea l. T h e c ase s w ere c o n so lid a ted o n a p p e a l to th is C o u rt. G lover I, 755 So. 2d at397 -98. B eca us e of the f eder al court ’ s deci s i on, the G lover I
m aj or i ty hel d thatthi s C our tw as col l at er al l y es t opped f r om al l ow i ng t he cas e t o go t o t r i al ag ains t E p p s an d L u ster. ¶13. T he r emand i n G lover I w as handed dow n on J anuary 27, 2000. W e ar e nott ol d w hat tr an sp ir ed ov er the n ex t f ive y ea rs, b u t on Ju ly 8 , 2 0 0 5 , JS U fi led a n ew m o ti o n for su m m ary j udgm entw hi ch f

ai l ed t o addr es s thi s C our t ’ s i ns truct i on i n G lover I re g a rd in g liab ili ty i ns ur ance cover age. JSU ’ s m ot i on pre s ent ed t o t he t r i al cour tdeal s w i th onl y the i s s ues of pr oxi m at e ca us e and f

or es eea bi l i ty.At the heari ng on JSU’s summary judgment motion, JSU’s counsel correctly i nform ed the 4 trial court thatthis Court r emanded the case on the iss ue o f immunity and “whether or not the insuran ce kep t th em

in. ” H av ingm ad e th is s tat em ent, h ow ev er, JS U’ s co un selm ad e n o f urt he r reference to the issue. Glover ’s co un sel told the trial court that the case was sentback by the Supreme Court to be tried on the issue of liabi lity, with no mention of the requi red determination of ins uranc e co ve rag e. 

### 7 ¶14. W e f

i nd i tcur i ous that , s even ye ar s af t erthe r emand opi ni on w as handed dow n, t he
s i ngl e i s s ue thi s C our tpr es ent ed i n G lover I fordet erm i nat i on (“ w hethert he i ns ur ance pol i cy i n d i spute w ou l d co ver G l ov er’ s i njur i es”) rem ai ns u n add res sed. T his i s part i cular l y so 4
s i nce the opi ni on i n G lover I w a s a ttac h e d to JS U ’s m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. ¶15. T he tr i al courtgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm entt o J SU , hol di ng that( 1) G l over ’ s i nj ur i es
w er e notf

or es eea bl e; ( 2) J SU w as notthe pr oxi m at e ca us e of G l over ’ s i nj ur i es ; and ( 3) t he boys ’ act i ons w er e s uper cedi ng, i nt erveni ng c aus es , ther eby r el eas i ng J SU f r om l i abi l i ty f

or i t s negl i gence . O n appea l , G l overas s ert s onl y one err or : t hatt he t r i al courterr ed i n gr ant i ng
s u mm a ry j u d g me n tf

o rJ S U. ¶16. A l though w e ar e t oday ( f orr eas ons unr el at ed t o l i abi l i ty i ns ur ance ) r ever s i ng the tr i al
court ’ s gr antof

s um m ary j udgm enton the i s s ues pr es ent ed, and rem and i ng thi s m att erf or tr i al , the i s s ue of

w hetherG l over ’ s i nj ur i es w er e cove r ed underthe l i abi l i ty i ns ur ance pol i cy,
so as to w aive it s im m u n ity , rem ain s u n re so lved
. A s clea rl y ind icated b y this C o u rt ’s deci s i on i n G lover I, s houl d i tbe de t erm i ned thatG l over ’ s i nj ur i es w er e notcover ed by the pol i cy, thi s appea l – i ncl udi ng the j udi ci al r es our ces atthe t r i al and appel l at e l evel s and the att orney f

ees expende d – w as poi nt l es s and unnec es s ary.

### 8 A N A L Y S IS ¶1 7
. T h e o n ly issue p rese n ted is w h e the r th e tri al co u rterred in g ran ti n g su m m ary jud g m en t t o JS U
. T h u s, w e b eg in o u r an aly sis w ith a re v iew o f th e ru les w h ich g o v ern
s um m ary j udgm entand a di s cus s i on of the s t andar d f

orr ever s al o f a tr i al court ’ s gr antof
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I. ¶18. W hat everdoubtexi s t s as t o the appr opr i at e appl i cat i on of s um m ary j udgm enti n a part i cularcase, the n ecessi ty for ( and w i sdom of) a rul e al l ow i ng earl y resol uti on of m eri t l ess
c a se s is a lm o st u n iv e rsa lly a d m itt e d . S u m m a ry ju d g m e n t in M iss iss ip p i is g o v e rn e d b y R u le 56 of the M i s s i s s i ppi Rul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e, w hi ch cl ear l y and unambi guous l y pr ovi des th a t su m m a ry ju d g m e n t “s h a ll b e re n d e re d fo rth w ith
. . . [i f] th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to
a n y m a te ri a l f

a c t a n d . . . th e m o v in g p a rt y is e n title d to a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f l a w .” M i s s . R
. C i v. P
. 56( c) ( emphasi s added)
. I n Sim m ons v. T hom ps on Machine of Mis s is s i ppi . , I nc. , thi s C our thel d: O f i m por t ance her e i s the l anguage of the rul e author i zi ng summ ary j udgm ent “w her e ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al f

act . ” The pr es ence of

f acti s s ues i n the r ecor d does notpers e ent i t l e a pa r ty t o avoi d s um m ary j udgm ent . T he courtm us tbe convi nced thatthe f actual i s s ue i s a m at eri al one, one that m at t ers in an out come det erm i nat i ve s ens e . . . the exi s t ence of a hundr ed cont es t ed i s s ues of

f actw i l l n otthw arts um m ary j udgm entw her e ther e i s no g e n u in e d isp u te r e g a rd in g th e m a ter ial iss u e s o f fa c t. Sim m ons , 631 So. 2d 798, 801 ( M i s s . 1994) ( emphasi s om i t t ed) ( ci t i ng S h a w v. B u rc h fie ld , 4 8 1 S o . 2 d 2 4 7 , 2 5 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 5 )). ¶19. I f one i s t o f

ai thf ul l y app l y the R ul e’ s r equi r ement s t o a part i cul arcas e, t he in e sc a p a b le c o n c lu sio n fo llo w s th a t th e c o u rt m u st g ra n t su m m a ry ju d g m e n t u n les s – a s toW e o ft enhe ar p arties arguethat summ ary judgm ent sh ould b e d ef

eat ed wh erethere i s a 5 genuine issue as to an important fa ct. This is n ot so . The re m aye xis t many im po rtant f act ua l is su es, theres olutio n o f whic h w illn ot de ter mineth e pre vailingp arty. A ge nuineiss ueas to a material fa ct is one which, absentits resolution at trial in favor of the non-moving party, will result i n a judgment for the moving party. Se e Simmons, 631 So. 2d at 801. AlthoughRule 5 6(c ) prov ide s th at s uc h re co rd e viden ce mayinc lude th e “p lea dings , 6 depo sition s, answ ers to int errog ato rie s and admiss ion s onfil e, toge ther wit h . . . a ff idavit s, ” a p arty de fendingsumm ary

judgm ent “mayno t re st u po n th e m ereall eg ati on s o r denials o f his [or he r] ple ading s. ” Mi ss. R. Civ. P. 56 (e)
. Ordin ari ly t

he“f inder o f f act” w ould b e a j ury

but, as is tru e in

thi s ca se, thetri al j udge , in 7 addition to app lyingthe law, oft ensits as thefact -f inder. Al l cas es f

ile d und er t

heMis sis sippi T ort Cl aim s A ct m

us t betri ed

to a judgewi tho ut a

jur y. Mis s. Co deAnn. § 1 1-4 6-1 3(1 ) (Rev . 2 00 2). 

### 9 eac h m at er i al i s s ue of

di s put ed f

act ra i s ed by t he m ovi ng par ty – the r ecor d demonstr at es 5 6 atl eas tthe mi ni m um quantum of evi dence suf f i ci entt o j us t i f

y a det erm i nat i on i n fa vorof the
n o n -m o v ing p arty b y a re aso n ab le j u ror. ¶20
. Iti s not enou gh t o say (as m any do ) that sum m ary j ud gm ent shou l d be d enied becau se
e v id e n c e w ill , o r m ig h t, be d e v e lo p e d late r in d isc o v e ry – o r a t trial. It also is n o t en o u g h to
s ay thats um m ary j udgm ents houl d be gr ant ed beca us e the evi dence i s s l i m and unper s uas i ve. ¶ 2 1
. T h u s , i n t o d a y ’ s a p p e a l , we l o o k o n l y t o l e a rn wh e th e r , a s t o e a c h i s s u e r a i s e d b y J S U, ther e exi s t s a f

actual ques t i on t o be det erm i ned by t he f i nderof f act . B eca us e the tr i al j udge 7
w h o g ra n ted su m m a ry ju d g m e n t w ill a lso sit a s th e fin d e r o f fa c t, it is im p o rta n t to d istin g u ish th e tria l ju d g e ’s d u ty in re v iew in g th e s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n fro m h is d u ty
a s th e trier o f fa c t. ¶22. Pur s uantt o an O r derof thi s C our t , R ul e 56 w enti nt o e f f ecti n s ubs t ant i al l y i t s curr ent form on January 1 , 19 81
. T w o y ea rs later , w ri t i ng fora un anim ou s C ou rtati t s “f i rs t
o p p o rt u n ity to c o n s id e r t h e o ff ic e o f th e m o tio n f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t u n d e r R u le 5 6
. . . ,” J u s tic e R o b e rt s o n p ro v id e d a n e x c e lle n t a n d o ft e n -c ite d a n a ly s is
. B row n v. Credit Cen ter,

### 10

I nc. , 4 4 4 S o . 2 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 0 (M iss . 1 9 8 3 ). “T h e a rg u m e n t th a t th e re e x ists n o g e n u in e triab le is s u e o f m a te ri a l f

a c t is th e fu n c tio n a l e q u iv a le n t o f a re q u e s t f o r a p e re m p to ry in s tru c tio n .” Id
. at36 2. T h e tr ial j ud ge m ustrevi ew the m at t ers properl y p res ented “i n the l i gh tm ost f avor abl e t o the party agai ns tw hom the mot i on has been made. ” Id . F u rth e rm o re , co u rts
m us tbe s ens i t i ve t o the not i on thats um m ary j udgm entm ay neve rbe gr ant ed in d e ro g a tio n o f a p a rty ’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to tria l b y ju ry . M iss . C o n st. a rt. 3, § 31 ( 1890)
. O n the otherhand, ther e i s no vi ol at i on of the r i ghtof

tr i al by j ury w hen j udgm enti s ent er ed s um m ar i l y i n cas es w her e t her e i s no genui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fa ctand t he m ovi ng par ty i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t er of l aw . T here i s no ri gh tt o tr i al by j ury i n such cases. Id
. F u rth erm o re, “[w ] h en do u b t ex ist s w h ethe r th ere i s a fact i ssu e, the n o n -m o v in g p a rty get s i t s benef

i t . ” Id
. A nd f

i nal l y, the Br o wn C our tci t ed w i th appr oval a “l eadi ng
c o m m e n tar y o n F e d e ra l R u le 5 6 :” If th ere is t o b e e rror at th e tri al l ev el i t sho u ld b e in d en y ing su m m ary j udgm entand i n f

avorof a f ul l l i ve tr i al
. A nd the pr obl em of ove r cr ow ded c a len d a rs is n o t to b e so lv e d b y su m m a ry d isp o sitio n o f iss u e s o f fa c t fa irly pr e s e nt e d i n a n a c t i on . 6 M oo r e ’ s Fe de r a l Pr a c t i c e § 5 6- 15 [ 1- 2] p. 56
- 435 (19 8 2 ). Id
. at363. ¶23. I n gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm entt o J SU , the tr i al courtcorr ect l y hel d that“[ t ] he ce nt r al ques t i on bef

or e the [ tr i al court ] atthi s s t age of the procee di ngs i s w hetherthe pl ai nt i f f has br oughtf orw ar d any f

actore vi dence upon w hi ch the tr i erof f actc oul d l egi t i m at el y f

i nd t hat heral l eged r ape w as f or es eeabl e by J SU of

f i ci al s . ” I ti s f

i r m l y es t abl i shed i n our ju risp ru d e n c e tha t w e rev iew d e n o v o a trial c o u rt’s g ra n t of su m m a ry jud g m e n t. See e. g. N ygaar d v. G ett

y O il Co. , 9 1 8 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 7 , 1 2 4 0 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ); L eff ler v. S h arp , 891 So. 2d 1 5 2 , 1 5 6 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ).

### 11 II. ¶ 2 4
. In o rd e r to fu lly a p p ly th e sta n d a rd o f re v iew in th is c a se , w e b e g in b y c lea rly def i ni ng the i s s ues J SU r ai s ed w i th the tr i al courti n i t s M ot i on f orSum m ary J udgm ent (“ M o tio n ” ). T h is w ill se t th e p a ra m e ter s fo r th e se a rc h fo r m a ter ial iss u e s o f tria b le f a c t. ¶25. I n i t s M ot i on, J SU s t at ed: “I n orde rt o survi ve s um m ary j udgm entand s ucce ed on her cl ai m , the pl ai nt i f

f musts how thatthe act s of the as s ai l ant s w er e f

or es eea bl e and the al l eged negl i gence of

the def endantpr oxi m at el y c aus ed the pl ai nt i f f’ s i nj ur i es . ” J SU then s t at ed that “the def endant ’s conductm us tthen ca us e the l os s , by natur al and cont i nuous s equenc e,
u n b ro k e n b y a n y in ter v e n in g c a u se s.” S tate d d iffe re n tly , JS U c laim s it w a s e n tit led to
s um m ary j udgm entbe caus e ( 1) G l over ’ s i nj ur i es w er e notf or es eea bl e; ( 2) JSU ’s al l eged negl i gence w as notthe pr oxi m at e ca us e of G l over ’ s i nj ur i es ; and (3) the cr i m i nal act s of C has e and Cannada w er e s uper cedi ng, i nt erveni ng caus es of G l over ’s i nj ur i es , ther eby abs ol vi ng J SU of

any r es pons i bi l i ty. ¶26. J SU di d notar gue i n i t s M ot i on thati tw as ent i t l ed t o summ ary j udgm enton the i s s ues
o f (1 ) w h e th e r it w a s n e g lig e n t; (2 ) w h e th e r it is v ica rio u sly liab le f o r th e n e g lig e n c e o f its bus dr i ver , D oug L us t er; o r ( 3) w hetherG l overs uf f er ed damages w hen s he w as r aped by C annada and C has e. A nd al though J SU does di s put e G l over ’ s cont ent i on thatL us t erl ef tt he chi l dr en atthe w r ong l ocat i on, al l t hr ee chi l dr en t es t i f i ed ot herw i s e, re qui r i ng t hi s C our t( f or purpos es of

s um m ary j udgm ent ) t o acc eptas true the chi l dr en’ s ver s i on.It is no tew ort hythat the is su e bef

orethe f ed eral co urt

wa s n ot t helia bil ityof Lu ste r or Epps , 8 but rath e r wh e th e r Ep p s ’s in s uran c e p o li c yr e qu ire d t h e in s uran c e c o m

p anyt o p ro v ideEp ps a de fens e to thesuit. An em ployee’s knowledge is imputed to his employer. 30 C.J.S. Em plo yer-E mp loy ee§ 211 9 (19 92 ); seeals o Rest ate m ent ( Th ird) o f Ag en cy§ 5 .0 3 (20 06 ) ( Illus trati on 5-7 ); So ut hp ort L itt le League v. Vaughan , 7 34 N. E. 2d 26 1, 27 5 (Ind . 2 00 0) (ho ldingthat em plo ye es o f L ittle L eagueha d sufficient knowledge, imputed to the or ganizati on, to raise red flags about chi ld molestation by vo lunteer) ; Bourgois v. Montana-Dakota Util s. Co ., 46 6 N .W .2 d 8 13 , 8 17 (ac kn ow ledging th at “corporat ions know facts because those facts are i n the minds of corporate officers or agents” ) (N.D. 19 91 ); Su lik

v. Cent ra l Va lle y F ar ms , 5 21 P. 2d

14 4, 82 8 (I d. 19 74 ) (c on cluding th at, if em plo ye e wa s in fa ct an a ge nt o f f

arm co rpo ration , th enhis kn ow ledgewo uld beim puted to c orp oratio n). 

### 12 ¶27. O n m ot i on f

orr ehea r i ng, J SU r emi nds us that , i n G lover I, thi s C our thel d i t s el f bound by the f eder al court ’ s rul i ng, thati s , thatthe r ape w as unf or es eea bl e t o L us t er . J SU ar gues 8 th a t w e a re n o w b o u n d b y b o th c o llate ra l e sto p p e l a n d th e “ law o f th e c a se ,” w h ich p ro h ib its
u s from fi n d ing that G lov er’s rap e w as fo rese ea b le t o L u ster. A s w ill b e d iscu ssed lat er,
w h ethe r o r n o t L u ster sh o u ld h av e fore see n a ra p e is n o t th e issu e b efo re u s. R athe r, w e a re
r equi r ed t o det erm i ne w hethera f act - ques t i on exi s t s as t o J SU ’ s negl i gence . ¶28. I n anal yzi ng t hi s s um m ary j udgm enta ppeal , w e ar e bound t o acc eptthatL us t er knew thatthe boys ha d a pr opens i ty t ow ar d i l l egal behavi or , and thatthe ca m pus w as a dange r ous p lace to leav e c h il d ren u n att en d ed
. F o r pu rpo ses o f an alyz ing th e g ra n t o f sum m ary jud g m en t, w e m u st ac ce p t that L u ster w as ac ti n g w ith in th e co u rse an d sco p e o f h is empl oym entatJ SU
. C ons equent l y, w e mustacc ept , f ors um m ary j udgm entpurpos es , that JS U p o sses sed the s am e k n o w ledg e a s L u ster. Itn o w fall s u p o n u s to a n alyz e w h ethe r JS U ’s know l edge ( both di r ectand i m put ed) , coupl ed w i th i t s c onduct , c r eat es a tr i abl e i s s ue of f act 9
as t o G l over ’ s c l ai m s a gai ns tJ SU
. Becaus e of thei ri nt ertw i ned and depe ndentr el at i ons hi p, p rox im ate c au se a n d fore see ab il ity w il l be d iscu ssed tog ethe r.Fo r a disc us sio n o f t his Co urt’s var ious a

pp lic ati on s an d inter

pre tation s o f p rox im ate 10 cause, see Appendix A, her eto. The test is slightl y different in cases where a pla intiff’s i njuries are brought about by the 11 negl igence of more than one tortfeasor . In such cases , the testis whether the negligence of a 

### 13 III . ¶29. N o ci t at i on of

author i ty i s nece s s ary f orthe pr opos i t i on that , to recoverf ori nj ur i es i n a negl i gence cl ai m , a pl ai nt i f f m us tprove t hatt he def endantw as negl i gent , and thats uch negl i gence w as the pr oxi m at e ca us e, or a pr oxi m at e contr i but ory caus e, of the i nj ur i es . T he l egal def i ni t i on of

negl i gence i s f

ai r l y s i m pl e, uni ver s al l y appl i ed, and l i kew i s e nee ds no ci t at i on of

author i ty. N egl i gence i s doi ng w hata r eas onabl e, prudentper s on w oul d notdo,
orf ai l i ng t o do w hata r eas onabl e, prudentper s on w oul d do, unders ubs t ant i al l y s i m i l ar ci r cumst ance s . T he s i m pl i ci ty of thi s def i ni t i on of negl i gence obscur es t he compl exi ty of t he
conce ptof

pr oxi m at e ca us e. ¶30
. U po n careful revi ew of our preceden t , w hich has appli ed nu m erous pr ox i m at e cause
a n a l y s e s t o v a r i o u s f

a c tu a l s e t t i n g s , we f

i n d th e l a w o f

p r o x i ma t e c a u s e r e q u i r e s s o me cl ar i f i cat i on. 10 ¶31
. F or a part i culardam age to be recov erabl e i n a n egli gen ce act i o n , the p lai nti ff m ust
s how thatthe dam age w as pr oxi m at el y caus ed by the negl i gence . I n or derf oran ac tof negl i gence t o pr oxi m at el y c aus e the damage, the f actf i nderm us tf

i nd thatthe negl i gence w as both the ca us e i n f

actand l egal caus e of

the damage. D obbs , T he Law of T or t s , § 180 at443 (20 0 0 ). ¶32. A def

endant ’ s negl i gence i s the ca us e i n f actof a pl ai nti ff’ s damage w her e the f act f i nderconcl udes t hat , butf ort he def

endant ’ s negl i gence , the i nj ury w oul d nothave 11parti cular

tor tf eas or w as a

sub stanti al f

actor in b rin ging a

bo ut t heharm . D ob bs , TheLaw o f T ort s, § 171 at 415. 

### 14 occurr ed. St at ed di f

f er ent l y, the caus e i n f

actof an i nj ury i s “thatcaus e w hi ch, i n natur al and cont i nuous s equenc e unbr oken by any ef f i ci enti nt erveni ng caus e, pr oduces the i nj ury and
w i thoutw hi ch the i nj ury w oul d nothave oc curr ed. ” G ulledge v. Shaw , 880 So. 2d 288, 293 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ). ¶33. A def

endant ’ s negl i gence w hi ch i s found t o be t he caus e i n f actof a pl ai nt i f f’ s damage
w i l l al s o be the l egal caus e of thatdamage, pr ovi ded the damage i s the type, orw i thi n t he
c las sific a tio n , o f d a m a g e the n e g lig e n t ac to r sh o u ld re a so n a b ly e x p e c t (o r fo re se e ) to re su lt f r om the negl i gentact . D obbs , T he Law of T or t s , § 180 at443. ¶34. W e r ece nt l y consi der ed t he i s s ue of pr oxi m at e ca us e w her e a bus dr i ver , del i ver i ng
a n e ld e rly lad y to a d a y -c a re c e n ter , as sis ted th e lad y o ff th e b u s, b u t left h e r u n a tten d e d in th e p a rk in g lo t. Ci t

y of Ja c ks on v. Estate of

Ste war t Ex. Rel W om ack , 9 08 So. 2d 703 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ) S h e f

e ll, h ittin g h e r h e a d o n th e p a v e m e n t, a n d la te r s u ff e re d a s tr o k e . Id
. at 706- 07. T he pl ai nt i f

f pr es ent ed expe r tt es t i m ony thatthe def endant ’ s negl i gence w as t he
ca u se-in-fac t of th e strok e, w h ich in turn , ca u sed the lad y to su ffer pn eu m o n ia an d u ri n ary tra c t in fe c tio n s . H o w e v e r, w e m a d e it cle a r th a t th e d e fe n d a n t’s n e g lig e n c e m u st n o t o n ly be the ca us e i n f

actof thes e i nj ur i es and damages , butal s o the l egal cause, t hati s , t he d am ag es m u st al so h av e b ee n a re aso n ab ly fo rese ea b le co n seq u en ce o f th e d efe n d an t’ s negl i gence . W e def

i ned the i s s ue pr es ent ed as “w hethera str oke i s t he type of damage w hi ch
re a so n a b ly sh o u ld b e a n ticip a ted (o r fo re se e n b e fo re th e fa c t) a s a re su lt o f n e g lig e n tly al l ow i ng an el der l y per s on t o f al l i n a parki ng l ot . ” Id . a t 7 1 3 , Sm ith v. U nited States , 284

### 15

F. Supp 259 ( S. D
. M i s s . 196 7) ( ci t i ng Do n a ld v. Amo c o Pr o d

. Co
. , 73 5 S o. 2d 16 1 (M i ss. 1 9 9 9 ); Wil

lia ms , 1 8 3 M is s . 7 2 3 , 1 8 5 S o . 2 3 4 (1 9 3 8 ))
. ¶35. T he pl ai nt i f

f’ s expertt es t i f

i ed thatthe f

al l coul d have c aus ed the s tr oke, and the stroke, i n turn, could have caused the lady t o suff er pneu m on i a and uri nary t racti nfect i on s. Cit y of Jacks on , 9 0 8 S o . 2 d a t 7 1 3
. T h e p lain tiff a rg u e d th a t, be c a u se so m e in ju ry sh o u ld have be en ant i ci pat ed as a resul tof the negl i gentactof

al l ow i ng the l ady t o f al l , t he def endantw as l i abl e foral l damages caus ed, r egar dl es s of w hetherthey w er e f

or es eea bl e. U nper s uaded by thi s ar gum ent , thi s C our ts t at ed: A l though [ pl ai nt i f

f’ s expert ] of

f er ed a gr eatdeal of

t es t i m ony conce rni ng w hetherthe f

al l
. . . caus ed the st roke, an d w hetherthe s tr oke ca us ed [ the l ady’ s ] othernum er ous m al adi es , he of f er ed no t es t i m ony w hi ch s heds l i ght on the ques t i on of

w hetherst roke w as a f or es eea bl e r i s k orexpec t ed c o n se q u e n c e o f th e fa ll. Id
. at714. ¶36. O n t he otherhand, the def endant ’ s expert , di r ect l y addr es s i ng the f or es eea bi l i ty of

t he
s tr oke, t es t i f

i ed: Itw ou l d be extr em el y un com m on , al m ostunh eard of f or a m i no r f

al l t o cau se a s tr oke .
. . any mi norhead tr auma shoul d notcaus e a str oke .
. . . I a m s ayi ng thathead tr auma pers e i s notre al l y caus e f ors tr okes
. I t ’ s nota pr eci pi t at i ng f a c t o rf o rs tr o k e s , y o u k n o w. Id
. at714- 14. T her ef

or e, the i s s ue w as notw hetherthe f al l caus ed the s tr oke, orw hethert he d e fe n d a n t re a so n a b ly c o u ld h a v e fo re se e n th a t so m e ty p e o f d a m a g e w o u ld o c c u r a s a re su lt of the f al l
. R ather , the i s s ue w as w hethers tr oke w as w i thi n the type orcat egory of damages
r eas onabl y caus ed by tr auma t o t he hea d. W e s t at ed: I n or dert o r e c ov e rd a mage s r e l a t e d t o the s tr ok e . . . the Es t a t e mus ts how m o re tha n n e g lig e n t co n d u c t w h ich res u lted in d a m a g e s; it m u st s h o w n o t o n ly

### 16

th a tth e s tr o k e r e s u l t e d f r o m th e f

a l l a n d th a tth e f

a l l r e s u l t e d f

r o m a d e fe n d a n t’s n e g lig e n c e , b u t als o th a t a s tro k e is a re a so n a b ly fo re se e a b le cons equence of

the al l eged ne gl i gentact . T hati s , the es t at e musts how that w here o n e n egli gen t l y all ow s a pers on l i ke [the p l ai nti ff ] t o fal l , stroke i s a t ype of dam age that is r ea so n ab ly p rob ab le t o o cc u r. Id . at 7 1 2 (em p h a sis ad d e d ). In h o ld in g the re co u ld b e n o rec o v e ry fo r d a m a g e s re late d to the s tr oke, w e s t at ed: I ts houl d cert ai nl y be ant i ci pat ed thatnegl i gent l y al l ow i ng an el der l y per s on t o f al l i n a parki ng l otcoul d l ead t o m any ki nds of i nj ur i es i ncl udi ng a br oken arm , cut s , brui s es , or eve n concus s i on. T he exa cti nj ury need notbe expe ct ed, ant i ci pat ed oreven c ont empl at ed. B ut thos e ar e i nj ur i es br oughtaboutby tr auma. A s tr oke i s notan i nj ury butr athera medi cal condi t i on w hi ch (a c c o rd in g to [d e fe n d a n t’s] u n re b u tted te stim o n y ) is n o t an a n ticip a ted re su lt of tr auma. Id
. at715. ¶ 3 7
. W e re itera te to d a y th a t, i n sa tisfy in g th e re q u ire m e n t o f fo re s e e a b ili ty , a p lain tiff is
n o t r eq u ir ed to pro v e tha t the e x ac t injury sustaine d by th e p lai n ti ff w as fo rese ea b le; rathe r, i ti s enough t o show t hatt he pl ai nt i f f’ s i nj ur i es and dam ages f al l w i thi n a part i cul arki nd or cla ss o f in

jury o r ha rm w h ich re aso n ab ly co u ld b e e x p ec ted to fl o w from the d efe n d an t’ s
n e g lig e n c e . I

d. ; see al so G ulledge , 880 So. 2d at293. ¶38
. T o i l l us tr at e, one w ho neg l i gen t l y d ri ves an a utom ob i l e reas on ably shou l d fores ee that his orhernegl i gence coul d be expe ct ed t o caus e ce r t ai n ki nds orcat egor i es of damages. S uch cat ego ri es w ou l d of cours e i nclude ( am on g o thers) traum at i c i njury, m edical bil l s, l ost
w ages , and pai n and s uf f er i ng. A nd i n or dert o r ecove ra par t i cul ardamage ( s uch as compe ns a t i on f

ora b r ok e n l e g orr e i mbur s e mentf ora n M RI ) , the p l a i nt i f f wi l l n otbe
r equi r ed t o pr ove t he t or t f eas oractual l y cont empl at ed thathi s orhernegl i gence w oul d l ead to a b ro k e n leg o r a n M R I. T o th e c o n tra ry , th e p la in tif f w ill b e a llo w e d to re c o v e r fo r a ll

### 17

injuries an d d am ag es re aso n ab ly ex p ec ted to resu ltfrom au tom o b il e a cc iden ts. H o w e v er, i f the acc i den tal so caused the p l ai nti ff t o m i ss a f

l i gh tt o L on do n an d , c o n seq u entl y, m i ss att endi ng an auc t i on and a onc e- i n- a- l i f et i m e opportuni ty t o purc has e a r ar e pi ece of ar t , t he neg l i gen tautom ob i l e dri ver ordi nari l y w ou l d n ot be l i able fors uch un for eseeable dam ages. T hi s i s so bec aus e they ar e noti ncl uded w i thi n the type orcat egory of damages a t or t f

eas or
or di nar i l y s houl d expec torf or es ee w oul d r es ul tf

r om car el es s dr i vi ng. ¶ 3 9
. T h is le a d s u s to th re e q u e stio n s: (1 ) w h e th e r JS U sh o u ld h a v e fo re se e n th a t it s negl i gence r eas onabl y coul d be expe ct ed t o l ead t o s om e type orcat egory of i nj ury and damage and, i f

s o, ( 2) w hetherthe i nj ur i es a nd damages s uf f er ed by G l overw er e w i thi n that type orcat egory and, i f

s o, ( 3) w hetherJ SU ’ s negl i gence m us tbe di s r egar ded bec aus e of an i nt erveni ng, s uper s edi ng caus e. A ddr es s i ng thes e ques t i ons w i l l r equi r e a c l os erl ook att he f act s s urr oundi ng J SU ’ s negl i gentact . I tbe ar s r epea t i ng that , i n r ender i ng i t s deci s i on t oday, this C o u rtis r eq u ir ed to v iew all ev iden ce in the li g h t m o st f av o rab le t o the p lai n ti ff. III . ¶40. O n the day the r apes occurr ed, J SU knew thatboth C has e and Cannada ha d vi ol ent t endenc i es . C annada had been expe l l ed f r om the pr ogr am i n a pr evi ous yearf orf i ght i ng. J SU al s o knew of

the acc us at i ons thatG l overhad bee n i ns i de the boys ’ r es tr oom , s ugges t i ng
s ome k i nd of

s e xu a l ac t i vi ty. A r e a s on a bl e f a c t - f i nd e rco ul d c e r t a i nl y c on c l ud e tha t , ha d J SU conduc t e d a tho r ou gh i nv e s t i ga t i on , i tw ou l d h a ve l e a rne d tha tG l ov e rha d b e e n i n t he
r es tr oom havi ng s ex w i th C annada
.W e ag ain po int out th at twe nty -on e o f t

he se rep ort ed

crim es w erevio lent, and fo ur w ere 12 reports of rape and sexual battery. 

### 18 ¶41. W e ar e of

the opi ni on t hat– gi ven J SU ’ s know l edge of both the boys ’ vi ol ent t endenc i es , coupl ed w i th t he s i xty- thr ee c r i m es w hi ch w er e r eport ed t o have oc curr ed on 12 the J SU c a mpus d ur i ng the thr e e months p r i ort o the r a pe –a f a c t - f i nd e rc ou l d f

i nd tha tJ SU f ai l ed t o pr ovi de ade quat e s upervi s i on and s ecur i ty on i t s pr emi s es . I n addi t i on, w e f i nd t hat
a r eas onabl e f

act - f i ndercoul d concl ude that , beca us e of i nadequa t e s ecur i ty and s upervi s i on, JS U sh o u ld h av e fo rese en that so m e h arm co u ld co m e to G lov er, an d th at th e typ e o f ha rm
w as s exual act i vi ty and/ orvi ol ence . A s di s cus s ed bef or e, al though the spec i f i c harm of f or ci bl e r ape may nothave be en cont empl at ed by J SU , r ape i s nonet hel es s both a vi ol entand
s exual act ; and ourl aw r equi r es o nly thatthe def endantf or es ee thats om e vi ol entactor im p e rm iss ib le s e x u a l ac t m ig h t o c c u r, n o t th e p a rticu lar v io len t o r se x u a l ac t. ¶42. F orthes e r eas ons , w e f i nd thatthe f

act s pr es ent ed – w hen vi ew ed i n the li gh tm ost f avor abl e t o G l over ’ s cas e – coul d l ead a r eas onabl e j ur ort o f i nd thatG l over ’ s i nj ur i es and damages w er e a for es eeabl e cons equenc e of J SU ’ s negl i gence . T hus , w e f ur therf i nd t hat
s um m ary j udgm entw as i nappr opr i at e. I V. ¶43
. JSU ’s argum ent that the rape w as an i nterven i ng , superceding cau se of G l ov er’s dam ages ha s no m eri t . O ur pr ecede nt cl earl y est abli shes that, w here the int erveni ng cause
o f i n ju ry w a s fo re s e e a b le , it c a n n o t s u p e rc e d e th e lia b ility o f t h e d e f e n d a n t. S e e , e .g ., So ut hl a n d M g mt . Co . v. Br o wn , 7 3 0 S o . 2 d 4 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 ). B e c a u se a re a so n a b le f a c tf i ndercoul d concl ude t hat JSU w as f ul l y aw ar e thatC has e and Cannada both had vi ol ent

### 19

t endenc i es , and thatG l overhad been i n t he boys’ re s tr oom havi ng s ex w i th one of the boys i n t he p r og r a m, s umm a r y j ud gmen tba s e d u po n the do c tr i ne of i nt e r ve ni ng , s up e r c e di ng
caus e i s i nappr opr i at e. ¶44. A ccor di ngl y, w e hol d thatG l overhas pr oduced s uf f i ci entevi den ce t o es cape
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t, an d th is m a tter is re m a n d e d fo r tria l. ¶ 4 5
. REVERSED AND REM AND ED
. D IA Z, P . J. , A N D R A N D O L P H , J. , C O N C U R . L A M A R , J . , C O N C U R S IN PART AND I N RESULT. W ALLER, P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT O NLY W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OPI NI ON J OI NE D I N P ART BY RANDOL P H, J . EA S LE Y, J ., D I S S E N T S W I T H S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y S M I T H , C .J ., AND CA RL S ON, J . GRAVE S , J . , NOT P ART I CI P AT I NG A P P E N D IX Pr oxi m at e C aus e – M i s s i s s i ppi Pr ece dent ¶46. I n r evi ew i ng thi s C our t ’ s pl ent i f ul pre cede nton pr oxi m at e caus e, w e ar e s truck by the
n u m e ro u s a n d so m e tim e s fa c ia lly in c o n sis ten t p ro c lam a tio n s. O n e e a sily c o u ld a rg u e th is C o u rt ’s de fi n it ion o f pro x im ate c au se in o n e ca se to estab li sh the in co rrectne ss o f an o ther. T hi s f aci al incons i s t ency appear s t o r es ul tf r om thi s C our t ’ s r ef

er ence i n m any pr i orcas es t o onl y so m uch of

the l aw of

pr oxi m at e ca us e as w as nece s s ary t o deci de the ca s e then p e n d in g b e fo re th e C o u rt. ¶47. Fori ns t ance , i n M & M P ip e a n d

P re ss u re V

e ss e l Fa b ric a to rs, In c . v. R o b e rts , 531 So. 2d 615 ( M i s s . 1988) , thi s C our ts ai d: I n det erm i ni ng w hetherthe ac t or ’ s negl i gence w as the pr oxi m at e ca us e of the i nj ury, i ti s no tne c e s s a r y tha tthe a c t ors ho ul d h a ve f or e s e e n the pa r t i cul ar in ju ry th a t h a p p e n e d ; itis e n o u g h th a t h e [o r s h e ] co u ld h a v e fo re se e n th a t h is [ orher ] conductcoul d caus e s om e i nj ury.

### 20

Id
. at618 ( ci t i ng C um ber land T el . & T el . Co. v. W

oodham , 99 M i s s . 318, 332, 54 So. 890, 89 1 (191 1))
. T his l ang uag e oft en is ci t ed li t eral l y, and i s ar gu ed to m ean t hat, s o l on g as a def endantr eas onabl y s houl d f or es ee thathi s orhernegl i gentconductcoul d caus e s o me i nj ury, the def

endantw i l l be l i abl e f

orany and a l l i nj ury f l ow i ng fr om the negl i gence , re g a rd les s o f th e ty p e o r c a teg o ry o f th o se a d d iti o n a l in ju rie s, a n d re g a rd les s o f h o w re m o te
orunf or es eea bl e they may be. ¶48. H ow ever , i n Mauney v. G ul f R ef ining Co. , 1 9 3 M iss. 4 2 1 , 9 S o . 2d 78 0 , 7 8 1 (19 4 2 ), this C ou rtdivi ded i njur i es r esul t i ng fr om neg l i gen tcon du cti nto tw o clas si fi cat i on s: t ho se
w h ich a re rea so n ab ly fo rese ea b le (for w h ich a p lain ti ff m ay rec o v er), an d tho se w h ich a re notr eas onabl y f

or es eea bl e ( f

orw hi ch a pl ai nt i f

f m ay notr ecove r )
. Speci f i cal l y, the Mauney C our thel d: T he s ett l ed l aw i n thi s s t at e m ay be s um m ar i zed i n the f or m of a di agr am, as f ol l ow s : T he ar ea w i thi n w hi ch l i abi l i ty i s i m pos ed i s thatw hi ch i s w i thi n the ci r cl e of r eas onabl e f

or es eea bi l i ty us i ng t he or i gi nal poi ntatw hi ch the n eg li g en t act w as c o m m itted o r be ca m e o p era ti v e, an d then ce loo k ing in ev ery d ire c tio n a s th e se m id iam e ter s o f th e c irc le, a n d th o se in ju rie s w h ich fro m th is p o in t c o u ld o r sh o u ld h a v e b e e n re a so n a b ly fo re se e n a s s o m e th in g lik e ly to happen a r e w i thi n the f i el d of l i abi l i ty, w hi l e thos e w hi ch, al though fo re se e a b le, w e re fo re se e a b le o n ly a s re m o te p o ss ib ili ties , th o se o n ly slig h tly pr obabl e, ar e beyond a nd notw i thi n the ci rcl e, – i n al l of w hi ch t i m e, pl ace and ci rcum st ances p l ay thei r r espect i ve an d im po rt ant par t s. Id
. at 78 0 -81
. T h u s, by ex clud ing from rec o v ery d am ag es fro m injuries w h ich a re “f or es eea bl e onl y a s r emot e pos s i bi l i t i es , ” Mauney c a l l s i n t o q u e s t i o n th e n o t i o n f r o m M & M P i pe , w hi ch, m any ar gue, decl ar es s uch damages ar e i ndeed r ecove r abl e.W e f ind littlesu pp ort fo r th e Ma un ey

C ourt’ s dis tin cti on . Eve ry dic tio nary consulte d 13 yields si milar definitions for an event which is “apt” to happen, “likel y” to happen, and “pr obably” will happen. 

### 21 ¶49. I n r eac hi ng i t s deci s i on, the Mauney C our tatt empt ed t o r econc i l e w hatappea r s t o be
c o n f l i c t i n g l a n g u a g e f

r o m Gu l f R e f in in gCo . v. Wil

lia ms , 183 M i s s . 723, 185 So. 234 ( 1938) , by s t at i ng: I n [ W i l l i ams] , i tw as poi nt ed outt hati n spea ki ng of pos s i bl e r es ul t s as appl i ed to fo re se e a b ili ty it h a s n o t b e e n m e a n t to in c lu d e o n ly th o se m o re a p t to happen than nott o happen, butembraces t hos e w hi ch the negl i gentact or s houl d have f

or es een a s s om ethi ng l i kel y t o happen, al though the l i kel i hood m a y n o t a m o u n t to a c o m p a ra tiv e p ro b a b ility
. . . . Mauney , 9 So. 2d at781. A ny f ai rr eadi ng of

thi s l anguage l eads t o the conc l us i on that , at l eas tf r om the Mauney C ourt ’ s per s pect i ve, the Wil lia ms Co u r td i d n o te q u a t e th e t e r ms

“ m o re a p t to h a p p e n ,” “ lik e ly to h a p p e n ,” a n d “ c o m p a ra tiv e p ro b a b ility .” 13 ¶50. T o compl i cat e mat t er s , the Mauney Co u r tg l e a n e d f r o m Wil lia ms s t i l l anothert es t f

or f or es eea bi l i ty, w hich st at es “thatm or e than a r emot e pos s i bi l i ty i s nece s s ary t o f ul f i l l t he
r equi r ement s of

the rul e of

l i abi l i ty, – thatthe l i kel i hood w hi ch f urni s hes the es s ent i al lig a m e n t b e tw e e n th e n e g lig e n c e a n d th e in ju ry m u s t b e o n e o f

w e ig h t a n d m o m e n t.” Mauney , 9 So. 2d at781. ¶51. A m ore cl ear and conci s e ana l ys i s i s f ound i n G ulledge v. Shaw , 880 So. 2d 288 ( M i s s . 2004) , w hi ch r ecogni zed a nd appl i ed, in part , the Mauney appr oach. C hi ef J us t i ce Sm i th, s peaki ng f

orthe G ulledge C our t , s t at ed: T h e fa c t th a t an in

ju ry ra re ly o c c u rs, o r h a s n e v e r h a p p e n e d , is in su ffic ien t to p ro tect th e a ctor fro m a find ing o f ne g li g en ce . If s o me i nj ury i s t o be ant i ci pat ed, thi s Courtw i l l f i nd l i abi l i ty even i f

the par t i culari nj ury coul d not be f or es een . . . . H ow ever , “[ r ] emot e pos s i bi l i t i es do notcons t i tut e negl i gence f rom the j ud i ci al s t andpoi nt . ” Thati s , w e do notchar ge the ac t orw i th a

### 22

“pr evi s i on orant i ci pat i on w hi ch w oul d i ncl ude an unus ual , i m pr ob abl e, or ext r a or di na r y oc c urr e nc e , a l tho ug h s uc h ha pp e ni ng i s wi thi n the r a ng e of pos s i bi l i t i es . ” ( ci t i ng Mauney ). Id
. at 29 3 (cit ati o n s o m itted, em p h asis in o ri g inal). ¶5 2
. T h u s, w e a re le ft to re c o n c ile th e la n g u a g e o f M & M P i pe , w hi ch w oul d al l ow
r ecove ry f

orunf or es eea bl e i nj ur i es ( s o l ong a s s om e i nj ury i s f or es eea bl e) ; the l anguage of Mauney , w hi ch pr ecl udes r ecove r y notonl y f orunf or es eea bl e i nj ur i es , butal s o f ori nj ur i es
w h ich, al tho u g h fore see ab le, w ere rem o te po ssibil it ies; an d the lan g u ag e o f Wil lia ms , w hi ch h e ld th a t fo re se e a b le d a m a g e s a re th o se w h ich a re lik e ly to o c c u r, a lth o u g h n o t n e c e ss a rily pr obabl e. ¶53. T hen w e m us tc ons i derthe cons i der abl e l i ne of cas es ext endi ng back t o 1936, hol di ng that [ t [ he pr oxi m at e ca us e of an i njury i s thatcaus e w hi ch, i n natur al and cont i nuous s equenc e, unbr oken by a ny e f f i ci enti nt erveni ng caus e, pr oduced the i nj ury, and w i thoutw hi ch the r es ul tw oul d nothave oc curr ed; or , as otherw i s e s t at ed, ther e m us tbe an ef f i ci entcaus al connec t i on betw een the negl i gence compl ai ned of a nd the i nj ury, and thatconnec t i on m us tbe a na tur al and cont i nuous s equenc e unbr oken by any othercaus e. Th o mps o n v. Mis s . Ce n t . R. R. Co
. , 175 M i s s . 547, 166 So. 353- 54 (193 6). T hus , t he pr oxi m at e- caus e t es tannounce d i n T hom ps on ign o res the fore see ab il ity inq u iry alt o g ethe r, and l ooks onl y t o t he ca us al connec t i on betw een the negl i gence and the i nj ury. ¶54. T o conf

us e mat t er s even mor e, thi s C ourth as qu oted w i t h app rova l the f ol l ow i ng pr ovi s i on f

r om a l egal tr eat i s e: “If the a ctor’s co n d u ct i s a sub stan ti al facto r i n b ri n g ing ab o u t harm to an o ther, the f actthatthe ac t ornei therf or es aw nors houl d have f or es een the ext entof the harm or the m anneri n w hi ch i toccurr ed does notpr eventhi m f r om bei ng l i able. ” S ect i on 43 5, R est at em ent, L aw of T ort s.

### 23

Matt hew s v. T

h ompson , 231 M i s s . 258, 95 So. 2d 438, 448 ( 1957)
. T hi s R es t at ement anal ysi s i gnor es both Manney ’s f or es eea bi l i ty r equi r ementand T hom ps on ’s con t i nu ou ss equenc e- and- caus at i on t es t , and i ns t ead mer e l y r e qu i r e s tha tthe ne gl i ge nc e be a “s ubs t ant i al fa c to r” in b ri n g in g a b o u t th e d a m a g e . ¶55. Fi nal l y, i n W

yet h Laborator ies, I

nc. v. Forten berry , t his C ou rtrecogn i zed t hat pr oxi m at e ca us e i n a neg l i gence cl ai m r equi r es pr oof thatthe def

endant ’ s negl i gence w as b o th a c a u s e in fa c t a n d a le g a l c a u s e o f th e p la in tif f’ s in ju ri e s . Forten berry , 530 So. 2d 688, 691 (M i ss . 1988) H ow ever , the Forten berry C o u rt, ap p ro v in g th e “ b u t-fo r” a p p ro a c h to p ro x im a te c a u se , req u ire d o n ly a fin d in g tha t th e n e g lig e n t ac t ca u se d th e d a m a g e (c a u se in f act ) and a f

i ndi ng t hat, b ut f

or t he negl i gence , the damage w oul dn’ thave oc curr ed. T he Forten berry di s cus s i on of pr oxi m at e ca us e i ncl udes no di s cus s i on of the r equir ementof fo re s e e a b ility
. I

d . ¶ 5 6
. T h e se c a se s, a n d th is C o u rt ’s c u rr e n t v iew o f th e re q u ire m e n ts to sh o w p ro x im a te
caus e, ar e i ncl uded i n partI I I t o t hi s opi ni on. W AL L E R, P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , CO NC UR RI NG : ¶ 5 7
. I a g re e w ith th e re su lt rea c h e d b y th e p lu ra lity a n d s im ila rl y a m p u z z led th a t th is
m a tter is b a c k b e fo re th e C o u rt w ith o u t an y in d ica tio n th a t th e iss u e “ w h e th e r JS U h a d in ef f ecta pol i cy of

l i abi l i ty i ns ur ance w hi ch w oul d covera t or ts ui tf orG l over ' s i nj ur i es ” w as
a d d re s s e d b e lo w . G loverv. Jacks on State U ni v. , 755 So. 2d 395, 405 ( M i s s . 2000)
. U nl i ke th e p lu ra lity , h o w e v e r, I se e n o n e e d to c o n n e c t D o u g las L u ste r w ith Ja c k so n S tate U n iv e rsity b y an em p loy er/em p loy ee relati o n sh ip to fin d the tri al co u rterred in g ran ti n g su m m ary ju d g m e n t to J a c k s o n S ta te .

### 24

¶58. J acks on St at e U ni ver s i ty ow es G l ov er, an d any on e els e ent er i ng the pr emi s es by i nvi t at i on, a duty of

r eas onabl e ca r e t o pr ot ectthem fr om r eas onabl y f or es eea bl e i nj ury att he h a n d s o f o th e rs o n it s p re m is e s . G r is ham v. John Q . L ong V . F . W . P os t , N o. 4057, I

nc. , 519 So. 2d 413, 416- 17 ( M i s s . 1988)
. J acks on St at e, by vol unt ar i l y ho st i ng and st af f i ng t he Na t i o n a l Yo u th S p o r t s P r o g r a m, i n v i t i n g mi n o r s l i k e Gl o v e rt o p a r t i c i p a t e , s u p e r v i s i n g t h e m, and contr act i ng w i th A ce Rent al t o tr ans por tpart i ci pant s t o and f r om cam pu s, ass um ed a duty t o per f

or m thes e t as ks i n s uch a m annerthatpart i ci pant s l i ke G l overw oul d nots uf f er lo s s d u e to its n e g lig e n c e . See D r. P epperB ottling Co. v. B r uner , 245 M i s s . 276, 282, 148 So. 2d 199, 201 ( 1962)
. W hi l e the f eder al courtm ay have dec i ded t he ac t s of C annada and C has e cons t i tut ed i nt erveni ng a nd s uper cedi ng c aus es w hi ch pr ecl uded the as s essm ent of l i abi l i ty t o E pps and Lust er , i tm ade no c om m entas t o any otherdu t i es ow ed by t he other p arti es to this suito r ca u sati o n . O u r p rev iou s o p inion leftthe m att er o f Jac k so n S tat e’s li ab il ity u n reso lved an d , as th e p lurali ty ac cu rately n o tes, the q u esti o n o f Jac k so n S tat e’s liab ili ty o n su m m a ry ju d g m e n t h in g e s u p o n w h e th e r Ja c k so n S tate m e t i ts b u rd e n to demonstr at e no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al f

actexi s t s as t o caus at i on. Pl ur . op. at¶ 25. ¶59. I agr ee w i th t he pl ur al i ty t hatJac ks on S t at e di d notm eett hi s burde n. T her e i s enough evi dence i n the r ecor d of cr i m i nal act i vi ty on t he ca m pus of J acks on St at e t o m ake c aus at i on
a q u e stio n f

o r th e c o u rt sitting a s ju ry . P lu r. o p . at ¶ 4 1 , 4 3 . T h is e v id e n c e e x ists in d e p e n d e n tly o f L u ste r’s k n o w led g e , a c tio n s, o r e m p lo y m e n t sta tu s. T h e re fo re , I fin d th is
r el at i ons hi p i m m at er i al t o the out come r eac hed by the pl ur al i ty. I w oul d avoi d the err or
a lle g e d o n re h e a ri n g b y re m o v in g L u s te r f ro m th e c a u s a tio n e q u a tio n a lto g e th e r. RAN DO LPH, J . , J OI NS T HI S OPI NI ON I N PART.

### 25

E AS L E Y, J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶60. A s I w oul d af

f i r m t he tr i al court ’s gr antof s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof J acks on St at e U ni ver s i ty ( J SU ) , I am com pel l ed t o w r i t e t o addr es s the pl ur al i ty’ s hol di ng r egar di ng im p u ted k n o w led g e a n d its re v e rsa l an d re m a n d to th e trial c o u rt fo r tria l. ¶ 6 1
. T h e f

a c t s o f th i s c a s e i n v o l v e th e d e p l o r a b l e r a p e o f a f o u r t e e n - y e a r - o l d g i r l b y t wo f i f t een- year -ol d b oy s. B oth of thes e young men pl eade d gui l ty t o the cr i m e of r ape a nd
se rv e d fiv e y e a rs in p riso n fo r th e ir c rim in a l b e h a v io r. T h is c a se , h o w e v e r, co n c e rn s o n ly th e a lleg e d c iv il l iab ili ty o f JS U . G lo v e r su e d JS U fo r fa ilu re to p ro v id e a d e q u a te s e c u rity and r eas onabl y s af

e pr emi s es . W hi l e the f

act s s urr oundi ng the ca s e ar e horr endous , J SU has
n o l i a b i l i ty f

o rt h e i n t e n t i o n a l a n d u n f o r e s e e a b l e , i n t e r v e n i n g c r i mi n a l a c t i o n s o f th e s e t wo in d iv id u a ls. In a d d iti o n , th e im p u ted -k n o w led g e an a ly sis b y the p lu ra lity e x p a n d s lia b ili ty i n M i s s i s s i ppi
. T her e i s no evi dence thatD oug L us t er , a bus dr i verand pr ogr am w or ker , had any know l edge of

any all eged s exual act i vi ty t o i m put e t o J SU
. N o depos i t i on t es t i m ony f r om any of

the depone nt s s t at ed thatLust erkne w aboutany al l eged s exual act i vi ty occurr i ng in the b o y s’ ba thro o m tw o da y s prior t o G lov er’s rap e. T h e p lurali ty’s po sit ion as to L u ster’s know l edge i s pur e s pecul at i on and notbas ed on the evi dence
. ¶62
. G lov er cl ai m ed t hat JSU f ai l ed t o provide adequ at e secu ri ty an d rea so n ab ly safe pr e mi s e s f

orhe rw he n s he a t t e nd e d the N a t i on a l Y ou th Sp ort s Pr og r a m ( N Y SP) a tthe J SU
c a mpus i n 1 9 9 3
. Sh e c l a i me d th a tth i s n e g l i g e n c e r e s u l t e d i n h e rr a p e b y f e l l o w N Y SP part i ci pant s L ohor ace C annada and C hr i s t opherC has e. ¶ 6 3
. In Ju ly 2 0 0 5 , JS U filed a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in th e H in d s C o u n ty C irc u it C our t . J SU ’ s m ot i on al l eged thatCannada’ s a nd Chase ’ s c r i m i nal a ct s w er e unknow n andGlover file d s uit ag ain st NYS P and

JS U in th eir

indivi du al c ap aci tie s f

or h er alle ge d 14 inj uri es. Th e NY SP p rogram is a national

program that administers federal funding to institutions throughout the United States
. Gl over v . J acks on St ate Un iversi ty , 755 So. 2d 395, 400 ( Gl over I ). The sports progr am is for socio-economically disadvant aged childr en. Id. This Courtin Gl over I affirm ed the cir cuit court ’s grant of summ ary judgment in favor of NYSP. Id
. In his deposi tion, Lusterstated that he nev erl etanyo f the chi ldren off the bus at the 15 inc orrect loc ati on s o n Jun e 1 8. In addition , Lu ste r nev er st ate d that hekn ewof Mal ikah a lle ge dly be ingin t hebo ys ’ b athroo m

h av ings exo n thefirst

day o f t hepro gram . Lus ter

stated that Malikah de nie d b eing in

thebo ys ’ bathroo m

wh enhequ estion ed

he r, eve n tho ugh ano ther bo y c lai m ed otherwise. Lust er also neve r st ated that there was an allegat ion that any of the chil dren were having sex in the bathroom. Luster investigat ed only whether Ma likah was in the boys’ bathr oom. 

### 26 u n fo re se e a b le to JS U . In a d d iti o n , JS U a rg u e d th a t an y a lleg e d n e g lig e n c e b y th e u n iv e rsity
w as notthe pr oxi m at e ca us e of G l over ’ s i nj ur i es . I n S ept ember2005, t he t r i al cour tgr ant ed J SU ’ s m ot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent . I n the or der , the tr i al c our tf ound thatG l over ’ s r ape
w as notr eas onabl y f

or es eea bl e, and the r ape w as due t o the cr i m i nal act s of C annada and C h a se . G lo v e r a p p e a led th e ru lin g to th is C o u rt. I. ¶6 4. I n t he summ erof 1993, G l overpa r t i c i pa t e d i n the N Y SP pr og r a m l oc a t e d a t t he
ca m p u s o f JS U
. H er c o m p lai n t al lege s tha t on Ju n e 1 8 , 1 9 9 3 , D o u g L u ster, the b u s d ri v er, 14 pi cked up G l overand othe rN Y SP pa rt i c i pa nt s i ncl udi ng C annada , C has e, and A nt oni o Pugh. L u ster d rop p ed off G lov er an d th e o ther p arti cipa n ts atthe A thleti cs a n d A ssem b ly C en ter. H o w e v e r, th e N Y S P p ro g ra m w a s b e in g h e ld th a t d a y a t th e T .B . E lli s B u ild in g . W h e n it 15
w as di s cover ed thatthe N Y SP pr ogr am w as be i ng he l d i n the T
. B
. El l i s B ui l di ng, al l of the N Y S P p arti cipa n ts bo ard ed the b u s to the co rrect facil ity w ith the e x ce p ti o n o f G lov er, C a n n a d a , C h a se , an d P u g h
. T h e re a fte r, G lo v e r alle g e d tha t sh e w a s ra p e d in th e sta irw e ll by C annada and C has e, a nd Pugh a ct ed as thei rl ookoutper s on. G l overthen t ol d a ca m pus

### 27

pol i c e man a bo utthe r a pe . The J a c ks on Pol i c e D e pa r t menta rr e s t e d Can na da a nd Chas e. B oth C annada and C has e pl eade d gui l ty t o r ape a nd w er e s ent ence d t o pr i s on. II. ¶65. I n T

itu s v. Wil

lia ms , 844 So. 2d 459 , 46 4 (M i ss. 20 03 ), t his C ou rtsetforth the st and ard of r eview form oti on s f or sum m ary j ud gm ent as fol l ow s: T he s t andar d f

orre vi ew i ng t he gr ant i ng orthe denyi ng of s um m ary j udgm ent is th e sa m e stan d ard as is em p loy ed b y the tri al co u rtu n d er M
. R
. C
. P
. 5 6 (c). T h is C o u rtco n d u cts d e n o v o rev iew o f ord ers g ran ti n g o r de n y ing su m m ary ju d g m e n t an d e x a m in e s a ll th e e v id e n tia ry m a tters b e fo re it--a d m iss io n s in pl eadi ngs, an sw er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , depos i t i ons , af f i davi t s , et c. T he evi dence m us tbe vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the party agai ns tw hom th e m o tio n h a s b e e n m a d e . If, i n th is v iew , the m o v in g p a rty is e n tit led to j udgm entas a m att erof l aw , summ ary j udgm entshoul d f or thw i th be ent er ed i n hi s f avor . O therw i s e, the m ot i on s houl d be deni ed. I s s ues of f acts uf f i ci ent t o r equi r e deni al of

a mot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm entobvi ous l y are pres ent w her e one pa r ty s w ear s t o one ver s i on of the mat t eri n i s s ue and a nothers ays the oppos i t e. I n addi t i on, the bur den of demonstr at i ng thatno genui ne i s s ue of f actexi t s i s on the m ovi ng pa r ty. T hati s , the non- m ovantw oul d be gi ven th e b e n e f

it o f th e d o u b t. McC ullough v. Cook , 67 9 S o. 2d 62 7, 63 0 (M i ss. 1 9 9 6 ) (co ll ec ti n g au tho ri ti es). ¶6 6
. In Crain v. Clevelan d L odge 15 32 , O rder of Moo se , 64 1 S o. 2d 11 86 , 11 89 (M i ss. 1994) , thi s C our taddr es s ed w hethera l odge w as negl i gen tfor a l l eged f ai l ur e t o pr ovi de
s ecur i ty i n i t s parki ng l ot . T hi s C our thel d: T o pr ove attr i al thatthe M oos e Lodge w as ne gl i gent , Cra i n m us ts how a) the duty ow ed hi m by the M oos e Lodge; b) a br eac h of thatduty; c ) da m ages ; and d) a ca us al connecti on betw een the br eac h and the damages , s uch thatthe b r e a c h is th e p ro x im a te c a u s e o f h is in ju ri e s . L yle v. Mladini ch , 5 84 So. 2d 397, 398 (M i s s . 1991) . G r is ham v. John Q . L ong V . F . W . P os t , N o. 4057, I nc. , 5 1 9 S o . 2 d 4 1 3 , 4 1 6 (M iss . 1 9 8 8 ); Burnh am v. Tabb , 5 08 S o. 2d 1072 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 ); B oyd v. L ynch , 4 9 3 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 5 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ). Id
.

### 28

¶67. I n G r is ham , 519 So. 2d at416, thi s Courtc ons i der ed the duty of the V
. F. W
. , w hi ch
s ol d al coh ol on i t s pre m i s es , t o a patr on f r om an as s aul tby a thi r d party. I n the cont extof the duty ow ed by a ba rort avern keepe r , thi s C our thel d: N u m ero u s jurisdicti o n s h a v e c o n side red the d u ty o f a b ar k ee p er o r t av ern keepe rt o pr ot ectpat r ons fr om ass aul t s , and i n al m os tal l of thos e dec i s i ons the duty has been de s cr i bed as f ol l ow s : the keepe rof a baror t avern, though not an i ns ur erof

hi s guest s ' saf

ety, has a duty t o exer ci s e r eas onabl e ca r e t o pr ot ect th e m f r o m r e as ona bl y f

or e s e e abl e i nj ur y a t t he hands of ot he r pat r ons . A nnot at i on a t43 A
. L
. R
. 4th 281 and cas es c ol l ect ed ther ei n. A uthor i t i es in d ica te , h o w e v e r, th a t th e o w n e r c a n b e liab le o n ly w h e re h e h a d c a u se to a nt i c i pa t e the w r on gf

ul orne gl i ge nta c tof the un rul y p a tr on . C. J
. S. N egl i gence 63( 118) and 63( 127). T he r equi s i t e " caus e t o ant i ci pat e" the a s s a u l tm a y a r i s e f

r o m 1 ) a c tu a l o rc o n s tru c t i v e k n o w l e d g e o f th e a s s a i l a n t 's vi ol entn at ure , or2) actual orcons truct i ve know l edge thatan atm os pher e of vi ol ence exi s t s i n t he t avern. Id . a t 4 1 6 -4 1 7 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ); s ee al s o Cor le y v. Evans , 835 So. 2d 30, 38- 39 ( M i s s . 2003)
. M or e r ece nt l y, i n Cor ley , thi s C ourtaff i r m ed the tw o- pr ong t es tf or fo re s e e a b ility w h e n in

ju r y o c c u rs a s a re s u lt o f a th ir d p a rt y . Cor ley , 835 So. 2d at38- 39. T h is C o u rt h e ld in Cor ley : [ T her e ar e] tw o w ays t o est abl i s h l egal caus at i on, orf or es eea bi l i ty, i n cas es of as s aul tby a thi r d per s on. " T he r equi s i t e ' caus e t o a nt i ci pat e' the as s aul tm ay ar i s e f r om ( 1) a c tua l orc on s truc t i ve kn owl e dg e of the a s s a i l a nt ' s vi ol ent natur e, or( 2) actual orcons truct i ve know l edge thatan atm os pher e of vi ol ence exis t s [ on t he p rem i ses]
. . . " L y le , 584 So. 2d at399 ( quot i ng G r is ham , 519 So. 2d 413 at4 16 ). E vide nce of the exi s t ence of

an atm os pher e of

vi ol ence m a y in c lu d e "th e o v e ra ll p a ttern o f c rim in a l ac tiv ity p rio r to th e e v e n t in qu est i on that occurr ed in the g eneral vici nity o f the d efendan t ' s busi n ess prem i ses, as w el l as t he fr equ ency of cr i m i nal act i vity o n the prem i ses. " L y le , 584 So. 2d at399. Id
. ¶68. T hi s C our tal s o consi der s t he i s s ue of for es eea bi l i ty i n t he cont extof pr oxi m at e caus e. “The pr oxi m at e ca us e of an i nj ury i s thatcaus e w hi ch i n natur al an d cont i nuous s equenc e

### 29

u n b ro k e n b y a n y e ff

ic ie n t in te rv e n in g c a u s e p ro d u c e s th e in ju ry , a n d w ith o u t w h ic h th e re s u lt
w oul d nothave oc curr ed. ” G r is ham , 5 1 9 S o . 2 d a t 4 1 7 ; s ee al s o Titus , 844 So. 2d at466. In a d d iti o n , this C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t p ro x im a te c a u se o c c u rs “ w h e n th e o m iss io n o f a d u ty contr i but es t o caus e the i nj ury. ” Id
. ¶69. H er e, G l over f

ai l ed t o demonstr at e that J SU had ( 1) i m put ed know l edge f r om L us t er thatG l overe ngaged i n s exual a ct i vi ty w i th one of the as s ai l ant s tw o days pr i ort o herr ape,
as the pl ur al i ty s ugges t s ; ( 2) actual orcons truct i ve know l edge of the as s ai l ant s ’ vi ol ent natur e; or( 3) actual orcons truct i ve know l edge thata n a t m os pher e of vi ol ence exi s t ed on the prem i ses that w as for eseeable and the prox i m at e cau se of G l ov er’ s at t ack b y the i nd i vidual s. T h e r e f o r e , I wo u l d a f

f i r m th e tr i a l c o u r t ’ s g r a n to f s u mm a ry j u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f J S U. A
. L us t er ’ s T es t i m ony. ¶70. T he pl ur al i ty hol ds i n i t s s um m ary j udgm ent anal ys i s that the C our t m us t acc eptt hat “J SU pos s es s ed the sa m e know l edge as L us t er ” and det erm i ne “w hetherJSU ’ s know l edge (b o th d ire c t an d im p u ted ), co u p led w ith its c o n d u c t, c re a tes a triab le is su e o f fa c t as to G lo v e r’s c laim a g a in st J S U .” (P lu ra lity o p ., ¶ 2 8 ). T h e re c o rd b e fo re th e C o u rt to d a y re v e a ls th a t th e re w a s n o ev id e n c e tha t L u ste r h a d k n o w led g e o f alle g e d se x u a l ac tiv ity to im p u te to J S U
. ¶ 7 1
. In h is d e p o sitio n te stim o n y , L u s te r r e v e a led th a t h e m e re ly q u e stio n e d G lo v e r a s to
w hethers he had been i n the boys ’ bathr oom . T he pl ur al i ty hol ds that“J SU al s o knew of t he
a c c u s a tio n s th a t G lo v e r h a d b e e n in s id e th e b o y s ’ r e s t r o o m , s ugges ting s om e kind of s exual
a c tivity .” (P lu ra lity o p ., ¶ 4 0 ) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ). W ith a ll d u e re sp e c t to m y c o llea g u e s in the pl ur al i ty, I bel i eve thatthe pl ur al i ty has over s t at ed the evi dence
. L us t er ’ s ow n t es t i m ony,

### 30

wh i c h th e p l u r a l i ty i mp u t e s t o J S U, d o e s n o tr e v e a l t h a tLu s t e rh a d a n y k n o wl e d g e a tth e t i me h e s p o k e to th e c h ild re n in th e h a llw a y o f a n y a c tiv ity th a t “ s ugges t [ ed]s om e kind of

s exual
a c tivity ” o ccurr i ng i n the bathr oom . L us t er ’ s compl et e t es t i m ony on thi s i s s ue w as as fol l ow s: Q
. D i d you everhave t o i nves t i gat e any com pl ai nt s conce rni ng [G lov er’s] b eh av ior? A
. Y es , I di d. Q
. W ou l d y ou pleas e descri be to m e w hat that s i tuati on w as? A
. O n th a t M o n d ay I be li ev e itw as, on that M o n d ay w e w ere - - y ea h , that M o n d ay , w e w ere in the A thleti c & A ssem b ly C en ter, a n d a little b o y c a m e a n d s a id so m e g irls - - w e ll, a g irl w a s in the boys r es tr oom . A nd my gr oup w as i n bas ketbal l atthatt i m e, s o the l ady thatw as i n char ge of bas ketbal l , I t ol d herI ne eded to g o a ro u n d h e re a n d fin d o u t w h a t’s g o in g o n . W e ll, I sa id to getthes e ki ds outof the hal l w ay. T hat ’ s w hatI s ai d. So I w ent i n the hal l w ay, and ther e w as [ G l over ]
. S o I w enti n the h a l l wa y , a n d th e r e wa s [ Gl o v e r ] s t a n d i n g a tt h e b o y s b a th r o o m. An d I q u e s t i o n e d h e r . I s a i d we r e y o u i n th e b o y s b a th r o o m. S h e sa id n o . T h e re w a s a n o th e r litt le g irl sta n d in g th e re w ith her
. I don ’tr eca l l w ho i tw as . I s ai d w er e y’ al l i n the boys bathr oom . T hey keptt el l i ng m e n o t hatthey w er e noti n the boys bathr oom . The l i t t l e boy ke pti ns i s t i ng thats he w as i n the b o y s b a th ro o m . S o I ju st s a id e v e ry b o d y g e t o u t o f th is h a ll. L et ’ s go. G o back t o yourgr oup. E verybody go t o yourgr oup. C l earthe hal l w ay. So I cl ear ed t hathal l w ay ar ound t her e by t he boys ba thr oom , a nd e veryone w entba ck t o thei r pa r t i cul ar g ro u p s . A ccor di ngl y, L us t er ’ s t es t i m ony r evea l s thatatthe t i m e h e q uest i oned the chi l dr en i n t he h a llw a y , the re w a s n o ev id e n c e o f h is k n o w led g e o f an y alle g e d se x u a l ac tiv ity to im p u te to J S U
.

### 31

B . V i ol ent N at ure. ¶72. G l over ar gues that s he pr ovi ded enough evi dence that J SU had actual know l edge of C an n ad a’s a n d C h ase ’s pro p en sity for v iole n c e . G lov er c it es to C an n ad a’s a n d C h ase ’s depos i t i on and aff

i davi tevi dence
. B oth of thes e young men acknow l edged thatt hey part i ci pated i n the program and had had several fi gh t s w i th o ther part i ci pan t s i n p astyears. ¶7 3
. In I

n re Min o r Ch ild , 9 4 1 S o . 2 d 8 2 0 , 8 2 8 (M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 6 ), cer tdeni ed , 942 So. 2d 164 ( M i s s . 2006) , the C our tof A ppeal s uphel d a pre m i s es - l i abi l i ty cl ai m forthe r ape of
a young gi r l a ta n a part m entc om pl ex bas ed on the compl ex’ s a l l eged know l edge of the perpetr at or ’ s vi ol entnatur e. ¶74. H er e, G l over ’ s cas e i s eas i l y di s t i ngui s hed f r om the f actual s i tuat i on i n I

n r e Minor Ch ild . G lo v e r c la im s th a t JS U h a d a c tu a l k n o w le d g e o f th e tw o b o y s ’ p ri o r v io le n t a c ts , i.e . f i ght i ng, beca us e the s upervi s i ng adul t s knew of t he fi ght s . H ow ever , W
. C
. G or don, t he p rog ram ad m inistrator, st ated in an affidav itthat h e w as n o t aw are o f th e y o u n g m en ’s viol ent pr op ensi t i es. ¶7 5. I n I

n r e Min o rCh ild , the a s s a i l a nt , Ton y K e l l y, tr e s pa s s ed on t he pr emi s es of F ed era ti o n T o w ers A p artm en ts o v er th e co u rse o f m o n ths an d rape d K
. D
. as m a n y a s s ix tim e s . In re Min o r Ch ild , 941 So. 2d at824. K
. D
. as s ert ed thatthe apa r t m entm anage m ent k n e w o f K e lly ’s v io len t n a tu re b e c a u se Ja m e s G ra y , the n ig h t m a n a g e r, h e a rd K .D . c a ll to h im a n d a s k fo r h e lp to n o a v a il. Id
. G ra y cla im e d tha t K .D
. d id n o t ca ll o u t to h im
. Id
. H ow ever , G r ay di d s t at e thathe na rr ow l y mi s s ed w i tnes s i ng a s exual e ncount er i nv olvi ng K .D
. Id
. G r ay cl ai m ed thathe he ar d s om eone run a w ay as he w al ked dow n a hal l w ay and
s a w K .D . a d

ju s tin g h e r c lo th e s . Id . at 8 2 4 -2 5 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re a so n e d th a t “it is

### 32

bett ert o erron the si de of denyi ng s um m ary j udgm ent ” and f ound thatvi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf

avor abl e t o K
. D
. , F eder at i on T ow er s had actual orcons truct i ve know l edge
o f K e lly ’s v io le n t n a tu re a ft e r t h e fi rs t r a p e . Id . at 8 2 8 . In o th e r w o rd s, th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fou n d that F ed era ti o n T o w ers d id n o t hav e a ctua l or co n stru cti v e k n o w ledg e o f K ell y ’s vi ol entna tur e the f

i r s tt i m e thatK
. D
. w as r aped, how ever , i tha d a ctual orcon struct i ve k n o w le d g e a t th e tim e s o f t h e fi v e s u b s e q u e n t r a p e s . Id
. ¶76. H er e, J SU had no actual or cons truct i ve know l edge of C annada ’ s or C has e’ s vi ol ent t endenc i es t ow ar d rape. W hi l e ther e i s conf l i ct i ng evi dence as t o w hetherJ SU knew of the boys ’ pr opens i t i es t o fi ght , t her e i s no evi dence of any pr i oract s of

r ape by them. U nl i ke In
re Min o r Ch ild , there w as n o all eg ati o n that a n y JS U em p loy ee saw an y p o rt ion o f G lov er’s
r ape. A l s o, i n In re Min o r Ch ild , K el l y, a t res passert o the Fed erat i on T o w ers p rem i ses, ent er ed the pr operty and comm i t t ed the s ame vi olentact atl eas ts i x t i m es . H er e, the boys
w er e part i ci pant s i n an athl et i c pr ogr am overthe cour s e of a f ew year s and comm i t t ed r ape on onl y one occ as i on. Pr i ort o t hi s i nci dentr eport ed by G l over , J SU had no know l edge of C annada ’ s and C has e’ s pr opens i ty t o r ape. ¶77. T he ci r cui t court f ound that the boys ’ f

i ght i ng amount ed t o “adol escenthor s epl ay”
w h ich w as insu ffi cien t n o ti ce t o JS U th at th e b o y s ha d a pro p en sity t o rape . M o re
s peci f i cal l y, the tr i al courts t at ed: W h i l e th e p l a i n t i f

f o f f e r s d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i mo n y f r o m the allegedassai lan t s that they had been pr evi ous l y dis ci pl i ned i n the pr ogr am , thei racts can best be des cr i bed as adol es cent hors eplay betw een 13 y earold boy s . B ei ng on not i ce th a t yo u n gtee n a g e b o

y s o c c a sio n a lly fig h t a m o n gst th e m se lve s is h a rd ly n o tic e o f a p r o p e n s ity to r a

p e . W i thouts uch know l edge, i ti s i m pos s i bl e f or JSU and i t s em ployees t o fors ee t hat a r ape w ou l d occu r i n the even tthat these yout hs w er e dr opped of f atthe w r ong l ocat i on. H er e, G l over ’ s al l eged r ape

### 33

w as out s i de the ci r cl e of f or es eea bi l i ty and the tr i erof f actcoul d not r eas onabl y f

i nd otherw i se be caus e the r ape w as the pr oductof i nt erveni ng cri m i nal act s of thir d p art i es. (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 7 8
. T h e v io len t ac t at iss u e b e fo re th is C o u rt is th e ra p e o f a y o u n g g irl, n o t sim p le sc h o o lb o y an ti cs. A d o lesce n t f igh ts are no t u n co m m o n acti o n s for t ee n ag e b o y s. R ap e, ho w ev er, has a he i ght ened degr ee of vi ol ence thatc annotr eas onabl y be c om par ed t o adol es cent f i ght i ng by any meas ur e. Fi ght i ng w i th othera dol es cent s does notequat e t o a pr opens i ty f or vi ol ence orf

orr api ng anotheri ndi vi dual , and t o f i nd otherw i s e s i m pl y de f i es a r eas onabl ef or es eea bi l i ty s t andar d. A ccor di ngl y, G l overf ai l ed t o demonstr at e thatJ SU had ac t i ve or
cons truct i ve know l edge of C annada ’ s and C has e’ s vi ol entt endenc i es t ow ar d r ape. C . A t m os phere of

V i ol ence. 1. F ores eeabi l i t y. ¶79. G l overa r gues thats he pr es ent ed s uf f i ci entevi dence of

vi ol entcr i m es thatoccurr ed atJ SU pr i ort o herr ape, r el yi ng on G atew ood v. Sam ps on , 8 1 2 S o . 2 d 2 1 2 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). In G atew ood , R oy S ampson ent er ed t he parki ng l otof the E l l i s Is l e E xxon t o buy gas and us ed t he pay t el ephone. H e w as s hotby otheri ndi vi dual s w ho ent er ed the pr emi s es ow ned by G a te w o o d
. G atew ood , 8 1 2 S o . 2 d a t 2 1 6 . S a m p so n p ro v id e d a list o f c rim e s c o m m itt e d in th e v ic in it y o f t h e g a s s ta tio n . Id
. a t22 0. H e r e , G l ov e ra l s o i ntr od uc e d r e c or ds of c r i mes
comm i t t ed w i thi n the vi ci ni ty of J SU
. R ape a nd s exual batt ery w er e among t he r epor t ed cri m es on the JSU cam pu s. ¶80. T he tr i al court f

ound that G l over ’ s evi den ce of an “atm os pher e of vi ol ence ” i n t he vi ci ni ty of

J SU w as i r r el evant . T he t r i al courtr eas oned thatno one f r om the nei ghbor i ngTi tu s wa s d eci de d b y thi s Court a y ear af ter Gatewood. If

a p arty d emon strate s an 16 atmosphere of violence, that, in and of itself, is not enough to establish l iabili ty without consi dering fo res eea bil it y . T h is c re ate s as it

u ati o nwh e reap art

yw o u ld a lw ay s p re v a ild e s p it e o th e r f a c to rs be cau se, un fo rtunately, no are a is untouch ed b y crim e. F urt

he r, to f ind oth erw isewo uld

cre atean overly broad s tandard for li ability. In Titus , this Court spe cifically re qu ir ed the conside ration of 

### 34 vi ci ni ty w ander ed ont o t he ca m pus and r aped G l over . I ns t ead, the tr i al courtf ound thatthe
r ape w as c aus ed by otherpart i ci pant s i n the pr ogr am. Fur ther , the tr i al courtf ound that“the
m er e f actthatJ SU i s s i tuat ed i n a hi gh cr i m e ar ea doe s no talone serve t o m ake the s exual
ac ti v ity o f G lov e r, C a n ad a (sic), C h ase o r P u g h fore see ab le. ” T h ere fore , the tri al co u rt cl ear l y bas ed i t s rul i ng on G l over ’ s fa i l ur e t o adequat el y demonstr at e f or es eea bi l i ty. I agr ee
w i th the tr i al court ’ s r eas oni ng i n t hi s cas e. ¶ 8 1
. Gl o v e r ’ s c a s e a l s o i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m G atew oodba s e d o n the i s s ue of f or es eea bi l i ty. A s s t at ed above, Sampson ent er ed the gas s t at i on t o us e i t s pay phone a nd buy g a s . G atew ood, 8 1 2 S o . 2 d a t 2 1 6 . A s S a m p so n u se d th e tele p h o n e , a c a rlo a d o f p e o p le d ro v e o n to th e s ite , a n d o n e p e rs o n e x ite d th e v e h ic le
. Id
. L at er , thi s per s on s hoved S a m p s o n , a n d th e tw o m e n fo u g h t o v e r a g u n c a rr ie d b y th e o th e r m a n . Id
. D u ri n g th is
s cuf f l e, Sam ps on w as s hoti n the back of the head, a nd the otherm an w as s hotand ki l l ed by th e o th e r o c c u p a n ts in th e c a r. Id
. H ere , G lov er’s ass ail an ts, C an n ad a a n d C h ase , w ere part i ci pant s i n t he N Y SP pr ogr am and notsome unknow n, ra ndom r api s t s w ho ent er ed the J SU campus f

r om the nea rby vi ci ni ty. ¶82. I n addi t i on, thi s C our ti n Titus and Cra in , as w el l as the C our tof A ppeal s i n Ma rtin
v. R a n k in Circ le Ap a rtm e n ts , 941 So. 2 d 85 4 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) , acknow l edged the atm os pher e of

vi ol ence , yetdeci ded the ca s es on the i s s ue of f or es eea bi l i ty of

the i nj ury and l ooked t o s i tuat i ons of

i nt erveni ng caus es . T hi s Courtcl ear l y has s tr es s ed the i m por t ance 16foreseeabili ty when there i s an argument of an atmosphere of violence. Ti tu s, 844 So. 2d at 466. 

### 35 of f or es eea bi l i ty as the l i nchpi n of an i nj ury, al ong w i th pr oxi m at e ca us e, notw i ths t andi ng a pot ent i al show i ng of

actual orcons truct i ve know l edge of an as s ai l ant ’ s vi ol entnatur e or
a n a tm o s p h e re o f v io le n c e . See Cra in , 6 4 1 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 9 2 ; G r is ham , 519 So. 2d at417. ¶83. I n Cor ley , thi s C our thel d that“[ w ] e s ai d i n G r is ham , 5 1 9 S o . 2 d at 41 6 , that a tave rn keepe rcan onl y be hel d l i abl e w her e he ha d ‘ caus e t o ant i ci pat e the w r ongf ul ornegl i gent actof [ an] un rul y p at ron. ’" Cor ley , 835 So. 2d at3 8. F urtherm or e, i n Cra in , this C o u rt
r ef us ed t o i m pose a s tr i ct - l i abi l i ty s t andar d on ow ner s f ori nj ur i es s uf

f er ed as a r es ul tof
c ri m in a l a c ts b y th ir d p a rt ie s o n th e irp re m is e s . Cra in , 6 4 1 S o . 2 d at 1 1 9 1 ; s ee al s o Cor ley , 8 3 5 S o . 2 d a t 4 1 ; Mar tin, 941 So. 2d at864. ¶84. I n Cra in , thi s C our tagai n cons i dered evidence of an at m ospher e of vi ol ence and f ound thatthe pl ai nt i f

f , Cra i n, f ai l ed t o de m ons tr at e f

or es eea bi l i ty a nd pr oxi m at e ca us e f or th e c ri m in a l a c ts o f a th ir d p a rt y . Cra in , 641 So. 2d at1192. A s C r ai n exi t ed hi s cari n t he lo d g e p a rk in g l o t, h e s u ff e re d s ig n if

ic a n t h e a d in

ju ri e s fr o m a n u n k n o w n a s s a ila n t. Id
. at 1 1 8 7
. T h e r e wa s e v i d e n c e o f t wo c r i me s c o mm i t t e d o n th e l o d g e p r e mi s e s wi th i n th e t wo year s pr i ort o C r ai n’ s i nj ury and numer ous cr i m es w i t hin the vi ci ni ty w i thi n s i xty m ont hs pr i ort o C r ai n’ s att ack; how ever , onl y el even c r i m es i nvol ved as s aul t s , r obber i es , a nd ot her
v io le n t c ri m e s . Id
. at1192. T hi s C our tf ound thatthi s e vi dence w as note nough t o f or es ee C ra in ’s a s s a u lt. Id
. T hi s C our t ’ s anal ys i s , how ever , w enteven f ur ther
. G i ving C ra i n t he benef i tof doubt , the C our tas s um ed thatev en i f C r ai n adequa t el y demonstr at ed the fo re s e e a b ility o f h is a s s a u lt, h e s till f a ile d to s h o w p ro x im a te c a u s e . Id
. T hi s C our thel d t hat

### 36

C rai n fai l ed to show that i nad equ at e l i gh t i ng i n the l od ge parki ng l ot w as the proxim at e cause
o f h is a tta c k a n d in

ju ri e s . Id
. T her ef

or e, the C our tgr ant ed s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof the l odge. Id
. ¶ 8 5
. T h e fa c t th a t JS U is lo c a ted in a h ig h -c ri m e a re a d o e s n o t sa tisfy th e fo re se e a b ili ty
r equi r emental one. C annada and C has e w er e part i ci pant s i n the N Y SP progr am, not unknow n cr i m i nal r api s t s w ho w ander ed ont o t he JSU cam pus fr om t he nearby vi ci ni t y and
comm i t t ed the cr i m e. C annada and C has e w er e partof the i ns ul arN Y SP progr am and not p a rt o f a g e n e ra l p o p u latio n w ith in th e JS U a re a . A c c o rd in g ly , I fin d th a t G lo v e r fa iled to demonstr at e f

or es eea bi l i ty. B . P rox i m ate C au se an d Interven i n g C au ses. ¶86. T hi s C our tal s o has cons i der ed i nt erveni ng caus es . I n O ' Cain v. H ar v e y Fre e m an & Sons, I nc. , 603 So. 2d 824, 830 ( M i s s . 1991), t hi s C our taddr es s ed t he i s s ue of i nt erveni ng
cr i m i nal act s and hel d: A s a gene r al rul e of

thum b, cri m i nal act s can be i nt erveni ng caus es w hi ch br eak the caus al c onnect i on w i th the def endant ' s negl i gentact , i f the cr i m i nal a c t is n o t w ith in th e re a lm o f r e a s o n a b le fo re s e e a b ility
. T ouche R os s v. Com m ercial U

n i on Ins. , 5 1 4 S o . 2 d 3 1 5 , 3 2 4 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 ); R obinson v. How ard B roth ers of

Ja ckson , Miss . , 3 7 2 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 4 , 1 0 7 6 (M iss. 1 9 7 9 ). ¶87. Fur therm or e, i n Titus , a d e c i s i on h a nd e d do w n a f t e rt he G atew ood ca se, this C o u rt acknow l edged thatthe ow nerknew of an atm os pher e of

vi ol ence on the pr emi s es and f ai l ed to m a k e th e a re a s a fe r. Titus , 844 So. 2d at466. H ow ever , thi s C our tf ound thatt he pl ai nt i f f s f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h thatT i tus ’ s death w as proxi m at el y caus ed by the Fl as h St or e or W illia m s , th e o w n e r. Id
. at 46 4
. T itu s w as sh o t and k il led b y a third p arty o n the F lash S tore p re m is e s . Id
. T he p revi ou s ow ners had em ployed a secu ri ty gu ard t o prot ectthe prem i ses.

### 37

Id
. Thi s Courtf

ou nd tha tTi tus ’ s a c t i on s o f c on f r on t i ng a k no w n, d a ng e r ou s p e r s on w ho p o s s e s s e d a g u n w a s a n in te rv e n in g c a u s e . Id
. T h ere fore , the F lash S tore’s a n d W il li am s’s know l edge of

t he atm os pher e of

vi ol ence w as i ncons equent i al , as T i tus caus ed and
c o n tr ib u te d to h is o w n d e m is e . Id
. ¶88. I n Ma rtin , P a tr ic k S m ith w a s sh o t a n d k ill e d o n th e p re m ise s o f th e R a n k in C irc le A p a rt m e n ts b y a th ir d p a rt y . Ma rtin , 941 So. 2d at856. E vi dence w as pr es ent ed s how i ng th a t th e a p a rt m e n t m a n a g e r w a s a w a re o f d a n g e ro u s c o n d itio n s a t t h e c o m p le x . Id
. at857- 58. T he C our tof

A ppeal s ’ anal ys i s cons i der ed the atm os pher e of vi ol ence a tthe compl ex, b u t it f o u n d t h a t th e s h o o te r’ s a p p e a ra n c e a t th e c o m p le x w a s a n in te rv e n in g c a u s e . Id
. at 864. T he C our tof

A ppeal s f

ound thatthe apa r t m entcompl ex, atm os t , “‘ f urni s hed the
c o n d iti o n ’ i n w h ic h th e s h o o tin g o c c u rr e d b u t d id n o t ‘ p u t in m o tio n ’ t h e s h o o tin g its e lf .” Id
. ( ci t i ng Titus , 8 4 4 S o . 2 d at 46 6 ). ¶89
. F urtherm ore, G l ov er’ s case has a l on g his t ory before this C ou rtand the f ederal cou rt s. See G lover I, 7 5 5 S o . 2 d 3 9 5 ; N a tio n a l Fire & Ma rin e In s. Co . v . E p p s, e t a l. , N o. 3 :9 6 c v 1 7 6 B N (S .D . M is s .), a f f ' d me m. , 127 F. 3d 35 ( 5th Ci r . 1997)
. A l l de f endant s , exce pt J SU , have be en det erm i ned t o have no l i abi l i ty t o G l overby ei therthi s C our torthe f eder al
cou rt s. ¶9 0. I n G lover I, thi s Cour ts e tf orth the hi s t ory o f

a f e de r a l c ou r tc a s e i ni t i a t e d by t he in su ra n c e c a rrie r o f t h e b u s c o m p a n y th a t d ro v e th e c h ild re n to th e N Y S P p ro g ra m . T h is C our tf ound: E pps ' l i abi l i ty i ns ur ance carr i er , N at i onal Fi r e & M ar i ne I ns ur ance C om pany, f i l ed a de cl ar at ory j udgm entacti on (Ci vi l A ct i on N o. 3: 96cv176B N ) i n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tf orthe Southern D i s tr i ctof M i s s i s s i ppi , J acks on

### 38

D i vi s i on, agai ns tEpps d/b/ a A ce Rent al Ser vi ce, L us t erand G l over . N at i onal Fi r e cl ai m ed thati t s pol i cy di d notprovi de cover age t o E pps f orthe payment o r d e fe n s e o f

G lo v e r's c la im s in s ta te c o u rt . U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct Judge W i l l i am H . B arb ou r, Jr. , grant ed N at i onal F i re' s m ot i on f or s um m ary j udgm e nt , r ul i ng t hat N at i ona l Fi r e w as not l i abl e t o G l ov e r and had no dut y t o de f

e nd Epps and Lus t e r i n t he s t at e ac t i ons. Judge Barbo ur s t at ed, "G l over has s ubm i t t ed no evi dence t hat t he bus dri ver c oul d have f or e s e e n t hat t he m al e s t ude nt s on t he bus woul d r ape G l ov e r when he t r ans por t e d t he yo ut hs t o t he wrong l oc at i on. I n t he pr e s e nt c as e , t he C our t f i nds t hat no j ur y c oul d r e as ona bl y f i nd t hat t he i nt er ve ni ng c r i m i nalac t was f

or e s e e abl e . " N

ati onal Fir e & Mar ine I

ns. Co. v. E

pps, et a l. , N o . 3 :9 6 c v 1 7 6 B N (S .D . M is s .), a f f ' d me m. , 1 2 7 F
. 3 d 3 5 (5 th C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ). A fte r th e fe d e ra l c o u rt m a d e its ru lin g , E p p s a n d L u ste r a d d e d re s ju d ica ta and/ orcol l at er al es t oppel cl ai m s t o thei rm ot i ons f ors um m ary j udgm ent pendi ng i n s t at e court . J udge H i l burn gr ant ed al l the def endant s ' mot i ons f

or sum m ary j ud gm ent, fr om w hich ruli ng G l ov er appeals
. G lover I, 7 5 5 S o . 2 d at 39 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ). ¶9 1
. In th e fed era l d istri ct co u rt d ec laratory jud g m en t ac ti o n , Ju d g e W il li am H
. B arb o u r, J r . f ound t hatN at i onal F i r e, t he i ns ur ance carr i erfort he bus , had no duty t o def end the bus company, C
. H
. E pps (f or m er l y A ce Rent al ) , orthe bus dr i ver , D ougl as L us t er , and no l i abi l i ty t o G l overs i nce G l overf ai l ed t o pr ove thatthe bus dr i vercou l d have f or es een the boys w oul d r ape G l over , and no j ury coul d r eas onabl y f i nd thatthe i nt erveni ng cr i m i nal act
w a s fo re s e e a b le
. G lover I, 755 So. 2d at397. T hi s C our ti n G lover I hel d thatG l overw as col l at e r a l l y e s t op pe d f

r om pur s i ng he rc l a i m aga i ns tEpps a nd Lus t e rba s e d o n the f e de r al
a c tio n , a n d th e tria l c o u rt d id n o t e rr b y g ra n tin g s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to E p p s a n d L u s te r. Id
. at400. I n addi t i on, i n G lover I, thi s Courta l s o he l d thatthe tr i al c our tdi d noterrby gr ant i ng
s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t i n fa v o r o f N Y S P
. Id
. T hi s C our ts t at ed: “[ f ] undi ng a pr ogr am, w i thout
m ore, do es not cr eat e suff i ci ent ow nershi p o r cont rol t o est abli sh ei ther a du ty to supervi se
ora corr es pondi ng l i abi l i ty f orf ai l ur e t o s upervi s e. ” Id
.

### 39

¶9 2. A c c or di ng l y, the i nt e r ve ni ng c r i mi na l a c t of r a pe w a s a thi r d- pa r ty a c t f or w hi c h J SU had no l i abi l i ty. T he i nt erveni ng c r i m i nal a ct s of the boys w er e the pr oxi m at e caus e and the i nterven i ng cause o f heri njur i es. III
. ¶93. H er e, l i ke Cra in , G l over f ai l ed t o s how that the r ape w as f or es eea bl e by J SU
. H er e, a b u s d ri v er sim p ly d rop p ed o ff th e N Y S P p arti cipa n ts atth e inc o rrect l o ca ti o n . A lso, th ere
w a s n o e v id e n c e th a t an y N Y S P p a rticip a n ts e n g a g e d in c rim in a l se x u a l b e h a v io r p rio r to G l ov e r ’ s r a pe . I tw a s no tf or e s e e a bl e t hatt he tw o b oy s , a l s o p a r t i c i pa nt s i n the N Y SP p ro g ra m w ith G lo v e r, w o u ld c o m m it th e c ri m in a l a c t o f r a p e . See Cra ne , 641 So. 2d at1192 (no sh o w ing o f a c au sal l ink b etw ee n b ett er li g h ti n g in the p ark ing are a a n d the in jury
s uf f er ed by C r ai n atthe hands of hi s as s ai l ant ) ; s ee a l s o G r is ham , 519 So. 2d at41 7 (no
s how i ng thatbett erl i ght i ng w oul d have pr event ed an a s s aul tby one ex- w i f e on anotherexw if e). ¶9 4. Fur t her , t he act of r a pe w a s a thi r d- pa r ty a c t f or w hi c h J SU ha d no l i a bi l i t y. T he i nterven i ng cri m i nal act s of t he b oy s w ere the p roxi m at e cause o f heri njur i es. See Titus , 844 S o . 2 d a t 4 6 6 (T itu s’s co n fro n tatio n o f a k n o w n , w e a p o n -c a rry in g p e rso n w h ich re su lted in h is d e a th w a s a n in ter v e n in g c a u se ); Hol liday v. P i

zz a I nn, I nc. , 65 9 S o. 2d 86 0, 86 6 (M i ss. 1995) ( no e vi de nc e tha tPi z z a I nn p r ox i mat e l y c a us e d H ol l i da y’ s i nj ur i e s b e c aus e t he sta b b in g o f H o llid a y b y S m ith w a s a n in ter v e n in g c a u se ); Ma rtin , 941 So. 2d at864 ( the ap p ea ran ce o f C am p b ell at th e a p artm en t w as a n interve n ing ca u se o f S m ith ’s de ath). ¶ 9 5
. T h e c rim in a l a c ts o f th e se tw o b o y s w e re n o t fo re se e a b le, a n d th e a c ts w e re n o t o n ly an int erveni ng cause of G l ov er’ s i njur i es; they w ere the sole proxi m at e cause o f heri njur i es.

### 40

I n G r is ham , this C o u rt h e ld th a t th e p ro x im a te c a u se o f a n in ju ry is th e “ c a u se w h ich in natur al and cont i nuous seque nce unbr oken by any ef f i ci enti nt erveni ng caus e pr oduces the i nj ury, a nd w i thoutw hi ch the r es ul tc oul d nothave oc curr ed. ” G r is ham , 519 S o. 2d at417. ¶96. A ccor di ngl y, G l over fai l ed t o prove thatJ SU had ei ther( 1) actual or cons truct i ve know l edge of

the as s ai l ant s ’ vi ol entnatur e or(2) actual or c ons truct i ve know l edge thatan at m osph ere of

viol ence e xis t ed o n the prem i ses that w as for eseeable and the proxim at e cause of G l ov er’ s at t ack b y the tw o b oy s. I V. ¶97. For the r eas ons s t at ed above, I w oul d af f i r m the j udgm ent of the C i r cui t C our t of t he F irst Ju d icia l D istric t o f H in d s C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i. S M I TH, C. J . , AND CA RL S ON, J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.