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 7 - CA- 0 0 7 2 9 - S CT KI M BERL Y TODD, NA T URAL M OT HER AN

D NE XT FR I EN D OF L I L Y TODD, A MI

NOR
v. FI RS T BA P T I S T CHUR CH OF

W ES T P OI NT
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 27/ 2007 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LE E J
. HOW ARD COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: CLAY COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T ORNE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : RI CH AR D S HANE M c L AUGHL I N M E C H E L L E N IC O L E M cL A U G H L IN ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE E: W ADE G. M ANO R K E N N E T H T R E Y O ’C A IN 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 - 10/ 30/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
EN BA NC. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1
. K im b erly T o d d (“T o d d ”), on b e h a lf o f h e r m in o r d a u g h ter , L ily T o d d (“L il y ”), app eal s the sum m ary j ud gm ent of the C l ay C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rti n favor of Fir stB apti st Ch u r c h o f

W e s tP o i n t( “ F i r s tBa p t i s t ” ) , d i s mi s s i n g h e rt o rta n d b r e a c h
- o f
- c o n tr a c tc l a i ms
ar i s i ng f r om L i l y’ s per s onal i nj ur i es . A ggr i eved, T odd appeal s t o thi s C ourt . T odd r ai s es th e fo llo w in g iss u e s o n a p p e a l: I . W he t he r t he t r i alc our t e r r e d when i t gr ant e d s um m ar y j udgm e nt i n favor of

F i rs t B apt i s t , t hereby di s m i s s i ng T odd’s negl i gence

### 2 a ction a n d h o ldin g th a t n o g en u ine issue o f m a ter ial f a c t e x ists to s uppor t a j ur y f

i ndi ng f or Todd. I I . W he t he r t he t r i alc our t e r r e d when i t gr ant e d s um m ar y j udgm e nt i n favor of

F i rs t B apt i s t and h el d t hat no genui ne i s s ue of m at eri al f a c t e x i s t e d t o s u p p o r t T o d d ’ s b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t c l a i m. F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶ 2
. O n F e b ru a ry 3 , 2 0 0 5 , w h ile a t F irst B a p tist d a y c a re a n d p re sc h o o l, tw o -y e a r-o ld L ily T odd sus t ai ned a si gni f i cantl ace r at i on t o herfa ce, fr om hercheek dow n t o herj aw , w hi ch i nj ury r es ul t ed i n pai n, s uf f er i ng, and mul t i pl e r econs truct i ve s ur ger i es a nd l ef tLi l y w i th a perm anents car . T he exa ctci r cumst ance s underw hi ch L i l y w as i nj ur ed ar e uncl ear , as no adu l tw i tnessed the acc i den tthat l ed to L i l y’s i njur i es. ¶3. T he re cor d cont ai ns t es t i m ony by C ar ol yn W ard, one of the day- car e w orker s , w ho sta ted in h e r d e p o sitio n th a t sh e w a s ta lk in g w ith a p a re n t w h o h a dco m e to th e d a y ca re to
r etr i eve he rchi l d w hen s he hea r d L i l y cry out . W hen W ar d turned ar ound, L i l y w as bl eedi ng fr o m th e m o u th , o b v io u s ly in n e e d o f m e d ic a l a s s is ta n c e . ¶4. W ar d cal l ed f

or hel p f r om another day- car e t eac her , D ebbi e Fr om m , and then ca l l ed T odd. L i l y w as rus hed t o the emer gency r oom i n W es tP oi nt . T he hos pi t al s t af f det erm i ned th e e x ten t o f L ily ’s in

ju rie s w a s to o s e v e re , a n d th e e m e rg e n c y ro o m ill-e q u ip p e d , to p ro p e rly tr eatL i l y. L i l y w as tr ans f err ed t o N orth M i s s i s s i ppi M edi cal C ent eri n T upel o and tr eat ed by D r . G regory G ai nes . D r . G ai nes t es t i f i ed as t o the ext entof L i l y’ s i nj ur i es , w hi ch i ncl uded a c om pl et e l ace r at i on thatcutthr ough the muscl e of her f ace; h e per f

orm ed
r econs truct i ve s ur gery, butD r . G ai nes t es t i f i ed thatL i l y w i l l have aperm anents caron her fa c e .

### 3

¶5. I n addi t i on t o the sof t - t i s s ue i nj ur i es , L i l y s us t ai ned maxi l l ary tr auma, w hi ch r es ul t ed in tw o o f h e r te e th b e in g lo o se n e d fro m th e so c k e t. A m a x illo fa c ial s u rg e o n su rg ica lly
re m o v e d th o s e te e th a n d fi tte d L ily w ith a d e n ta l im p la n t. ¶6. T he r ecor d cont ai ns conf l i ct i ng t es t i m ony a s t o w hathappened t o caus e Li l y’ s i nj ury. L ily re c o u n te d to h e r m o th e r th a t o n e o f th e b o y s in th e d a y c a re h a d “ s to m p e d o n h e r f a c e .” D r. G aine s testi fi ed that the alve o lar ri d g e fracture (w h ich is a fracture o f th e u p p er m ax il lary
r egi on of

the mout h) w as n otcons i s t entw i th an or di nary tr i p- and- f al l i nj ury, butw as
cons i s t entw i th a s tr ong bl ow t o the f ace , ora har d bl ow t o the hea d w i th the hea d s ecur ed. L i l y h ad sai d she h ad b een lyi ng on a bab y b ed w hen she w as i njur ed by a bo y i n h er cl ass. D r. G aine s’s t esti m o n y is co n sist en t w ith L il y ’s st atem en ts t o h er m o ther. ¶7
. W ard , o n the othe r h an d , sp ec u lat ed that L il y h ad so m eh o w fall en . H o w ev er, W ard
a d m itte d th a t s h e d id n o t s e e th e a c c id e n t. ¶8. T odd s ued Fi r s tB apt i s t , w hi ch m oved f orsumm ary j udgm ent . T he tr i al court gr ant ed
su m m a ry ju d g m e n t in fa v o r o f F irst B a p tist. A g g rie v e d , T o d d file d a tim e ly a p p e a l to th is C o u rt. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶9. T hi s C ourt r evi ew s a tr i al court ’ s gr ant or deni al of a m ot i on f or s um m ary j udgm ent
u n d e r a d e n o v o s ta n d a rd
. H arm on v. Regions Bank , 961 So. 2d 693, 697 ( M i s s . 2007) ( ci t i ng McKinle

y v. Lam arBank , 919 So. 2d 918, 925 ( M i s s. 2 00 5) )
. T her e mustbe no genui ne i s s ue of

m at er i al f

actw hen vi ew ed i n the l i ghtm os tfavorable t o the nonmovi ng p a rty to su sta in a n o rd e r o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t ac c o rd in g to M iss iss ip p i R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 6 (c ). “I f a n y triab le is su e s o f m a te ri a l f a c t e x ist, the trial c o u rt’s d e c isio n to

### 4

gr ants um m ary j udgm entw i l l be r ever s ed. ” H arm on , 9 6 1 S o . 2 d a t 69 7
. In situation s w h ere there is do u b t as t o w h ethe r a g en u ine issu e o f m aterial fac t exists, “ the tr ial jud g e sh o u ld err on the s i de of

denyi ng the m ot i on and perm i tt i ng ful l tr i al on the mer i t s . ” A m er ican L egion L adnierP os t

Num ber42, I

nc. v. O cean Spr ings , 562 So. 2d 103, 106 ( M i s s . 1990) ( ci t i ng R a tl if f v. R a tl if f , 5 0 0 S o . 2 d 9 8 1 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); Bro wn v. Mc Q uinn , 501 So. 2d 1093, 1095 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); B r ow n v. Cr edit Ctr. , I nc. , 4 4 4 S o . 2 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 )). DI S CU S S I ON I . W he t he r t he t r i alc our t e r r e d when i t gr ant e d s um m ar y j udgm e nt i n favor of

F i rs t B apt i s t , t hereby di s m i s si ng T odd’s negl i gence a ction a n d h o ldin g th a t n o g en u ine issue o f m a ter ial f a ct e x ist s to s uppor t a j ur y f

i ndi ng f or Todd. ¶10. T he el ement s of a pr i m a f

aci e ca s e of

n egli gen ce are duty, br eac h, caus at i on, and d a m a g e s . G r is ham v. John Q . L ong V . F . W . P ost , N o. 4057, I

nc. , 519 So. 2d 413, 416 ( M i s s . 1988) ( ci t i ng B urnham v. T abb , 5 0 8 S o . 2 d 1 0 7 2 (M iss . 1 9 8 7 ); B oyd v. L ynch , 493 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 5 (M iss . 1 9 8 6 ); Ma rs h a l l v. Clin i c f

o rW o m e n, P. A. , 49 0 S o. 2d 86 1 (M i ss. 1 9 8 6 )) . D u ty a n d b re a c h m u s t b e e s ta b lis h e d fi rs t. S tr ant zex re l . Minga v. P inion , 652 So. 2d 738, 742 ( M i s s . 1995)
. T he el ement s of br eac h and pr oxi m at e caus e mustbe es t abl i s hed b y th e p la in tif

f w ith s u p p o rt in g e v id e n c e . Sim ps on v. B oyd , 88 0 S o. 2d 10 47 , 10 50 (M i ss. 2004)
. T he part i es agr ee thatFi r s tB apt i s tow ed a duty t o L i l y and Todd. T her ef or e, the f act i s s ues of bre ach and pr oxi m at e caus e t o be det erm i ned by the j ury m us tbe s upport ed by the pl ai nt i f f w i th cr edi bl e evi dence
. T he r ecor d r ef l ect s thatt es t i m ony, w hen vi ew ed i n the l i ght
m os tf avor abl e t o T odd, as requi red by l aw , coul d s upporta j ury ver di cti n f avorof T odd. Shoul d the j ury fi nd t hatW ar d bre ache d herduty w hen she di d notkeep the chi l dr en i n s i ght

### 5

fo r tw o o r th re e m in u te s , the ju ry c o u ld re a so n a b ly fin d fo r T o d d . “W h e n d o u b t ex ists
w hetherther e i s a f

acti s s ue, the non- m ovi ng pa rty ge t s i t s benef i t . ” G lo v e r v. J

a c kso n S ta te U ni v. , 968 So. 2d 1267, 1275 ( M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng B r ow n v. Cr edit Ctr. , I nc. , 444 So. 2d
a t 3 6 2 ). ¶1 1
. A sch o o l is n o t ex p ec ted to insu re ch il d ren ’s safe ty, b u t it m u st ex erc ise the o rdin ary
c a re o f a re a s o n a b le p e r s o n u n d e r s im ila r c ir c u m s ta n c e s . S u m m ers v . S t. A n drew ’s Epis c op al

Sc h. , 759 So. 2d 1203, 1213 ( M i s s . 2000) ( ci t i ng L e v a n do sk i v. J a c kso n Co u n ty S c h . D ist. , 3 2 8 S o . 2 d 3 3 9 , 3 4 2 (M iss. 1 9 7 6 ) (f u rth er c it ing 3 8 A
. L
. R
. 3 d 8 3 0 , 8 3 4 (19 7 1 )). I n S u m m ers , a f

i ve- year - ol d gir l w as acc os t ed by a gr oup of chi l dr en on the pl aygr ound. S u m m ers , 759 So. 2d at1215. Seve r al chi l dr en hel d the gi r l dow n, r emoved hercl othi ng,
e x p o s e d h e r p ri v a te a re a s , a n d to u c h e d h e r a g a in s t h e r w ill. I d. ¶1 2
. T h e tea ch ers a t St. A n d rew s w ere ac cu sed o f no t ade q u ately su p erv isi n g the plai n ti ff’ s d a u g h te r b e c a u s e th e y h a d th e irb a c k s to th e c h ild re n a t th e tim e o f t h e in c id e n t. I d. at1213. T hi s C ourthel d thatthe i s s ue w as “w hetherthe pl ai nt i f f s have s uf

f i ci ent l y dem ons tr at ed that the caus e of

i nj ury w as a f

ai l ur e by the t eac her
. ” I d. at1214. W e hel d thatthe ade quacy of the s upervi s i on pr ovi ded by t he t eac her s w as a fa ctquest i on thatm us tbe w ei ghed by a j ury;
w e re v e rs e d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t a n d re m a n d e d fo r a tr ia l o n th e m e ri ts . I d. a t 1 2 1 6
. ¶13. Fi r s tB apt i s tar gues thatthe pr es entcas e i s m or e ana l ogous t o Slade v. N ew Hor i z on Minis tr ies, I

nc. , 785 So. 2d 1077 (M i s s . C t . A pp. 2001)
. I n Slade , the pl ai nt i f f w as i nj ur ed
w hen s he w as pus hed by a f ourt een- year - ol d as s he w al ked i nt o the com m uni ty cent er . T he C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a ffirm e d th e tria l c o u rt’s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t an d d istin g u ish e d th e fa c ts in Slade f r om thos e i n S u m m ers , not i ng thati n Slade , “the s upervi sor w as . . . obs ervi ng the

### 6

chi l dr en and .
. . a w ar e of the i nci dent
. ” I

d. at1079. Fur ther , i n Slade , the C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
n o te d th a t th e p la in tif

f h a d n o t p ro d u c e d a n y fa c ts th a t th e s u p e rv is io n w a s in a d e q u a te . I d. T hus , i n Slade , ther e w as no i s s ue of m at er i al f

actf ora j ury t o w ei gh. ¶14. H er e, w e al s o di s t i ngui s h Slade f r o m S u m m ers and the pr es ent cas e. W ar d admi tt ed thats he had herback t o L i l y atthe t i m e of the i nci dentand di d nots ee how L i l y w as i nj ur ed. I n S u m m ers , the t eac her s al s o had thei rbacks t o the pl ai nt i ff and di d notobs erve the
m o le s ta tio n . S u m m ers , 7 5 9 S o . 2 d at 1 2 1 5
. W h il e the ti m e fram e d u ri n g w h ich th e tea ch ers atSt
. A ndr ew s f

ai l ed t o s upervi s e the pl ai nt i f f’ s daught eri n S u m m ers w as l onger , the i nj ur ed
c h ildw a s s e v e ra l y e a rs o ld e r. A ju ry m u s t d e c id e w h a t co n stitu tes p ro p e r a n d a d e q u a te
su p e rv isio n fo r a tw o -y e a r-o ld c h ild . T h e re fo re , w h e th e r o r n o t W a rd m e t th e a p p ro p ria te
s t andar d of

car e r equi r ed f

ora tw o- year - ol d chi l d m us tbe det erm i ned by a j ury. ¶15. T he tr i al court , i n i t s or der gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm ent , hel d that no genui ne i s s ue of
ma t e r i a l f

a c te x i s t e d
. W e d i s a g r e e . I n o u rr e v i e w o f s u mma ry j u d g me n t , we mu s ta s s u me th a t L ily ’s s tate m e n ts a n d D r. G a in e s’s tes tim o n y a re tr u e . O u r law is w e ll-se ttl e d o n th is poi nt ; i f ther e i s err oratthe tr i al l evel , i tm us tbe r esol ved in favorof pr ocee di ng t o a tr i al to e n a b le th e ju ry to w e ig h a n y e v id e n c e . G lover , 968 So. 2d at1275. T hi s C ourtm us tt ake
as true the evi dence pr es ent ed by Todd thatW ar d br eac hed herduty w hen s he l ef tthe chi l dr en uns upervi s ed f ors ever al m i nut es , and thats uch br eac h w as the pr oxi m at e caus e of L i l y ’ s i n j u r i e s . W h e n v i e we d i n th e l i g h tmo s tf a v o r a b l e t o th e n o n mo v i n g p a rty , T o d d , we fi n d th a t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s im p ro p e r a n d m u s t b e re v e rs e d a s a m a tte r o f l a w . I I . W he t he r t he t r i alc our t e r r e d when i t gr ant e d s um m ar y j udgm e nt i n favor of

F i rs t B apt i s t and h el d t hat no genui ne i s s ue of m at eri al f a c t e x i s t e d t o s u p p o r t T o d d ’ s b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t c l a i m.

### 7

¶16
. B oth part i es h av e sti p u lat ed tha ta vali d co ntr actexis t ed b etw een T od d an d F i rs t B a p tist fo r th e c a re a n d su p e rv isio n o f L ily . T h e re fo re , the iss u e o f b re a c h o f c o n tra c t is i nexor abl y t i ed t o the negl i gence act i on. W e hol d thats um m ary j udgm entw as i m pr oper , as
cr edi bl e evi dence has been pr es ent ed by Todd t o s upporta j ury f i ndi ng of negl i gence on the partof Fi r s tBapt i s t . T hatbe i ng the cas e, the i s s ue of br eac h of

c ontr acts urvi ves as w el l and
m u s t b e a d

ju d ic a te d o n th e m e ri ts . CO NC L US I ON ¶17. F or the r eas ons s t at ed above, w e f i nd thatthe tr i al cou rterr ed in grant i ng F i rs t B apt i s t ’ s m ot i on f

ors um m ary j ud gm ent . T her ef or e, w e r ever s e the tr i al court ’ s j udgm ent and rem and this case f

or a tri al on the m eri t s. ¶ 1 8
. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P . J J . , CARL S ON, GRAVE S , RANDOL P H AND L AMAR , J J . , CO NC UR . E AS L E Y A ND DI CK I NS ON , J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .