Case Name: Connie R. BYRD, Individually and as Natural Tutrix of the Minor, Gregory Gene Byrd, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1989-01-18
Citations: 543 So. 2d 35
Docket Number: No. 20,090-CA
Parties: Connie R. BYRD, Individually and as Natural Tutrix of the Minor, Gregory Gene Byrd, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before HALL, SEXTON and NORRIS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 543
Pages: 35–49

Head Matter:
Connie R. BYRD, Individually and as Natural Tutrix of the Minor, Gregory Gene Byrd, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20,090-CA
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Jan. 18, 1989.
On Rehearing May 10, 1989.
Rehearing Denied June 1, 1989.
Roy A. Raspanti, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
Henry N. Brown, Jr., Dist. Atty., for defendants-appellees Bossier Parish School Bd. and Charles O. Bennett.
Mayer, Smith & Roberts by Paul R. Mayer, Shreveport, for defendants-appellees, Pellerin Milnor Corp. & Pellerin Laundry Machinery Sales Co.
Roland V. McKneely, Jr., Bossier City, for defendant-appellee, Miles Holiday.
Bodenheimer, Jones, Klotz & Simmons by Harry D. Simmons, Shreveport, for defendants-appellees, Earl Haynes and Colony Ins. Co.
Lunn, Irion, Johnson, Salley & Carlisle by Ronald E. Raney, Shreveport, for defendant-appellee, Assurance Co.
Blanchard, Walker, O’Quin & Roberts by Julie Mobley LaFargue, Shreveport, for defendant-appellee, U.S. Fire Ins. Co.
Before HALL, SEXTON and NORRIS, JJ.

Opinion:
SEXTON, Judge.
This appeal arises from the rejection of plaintiff's demands against the Bossier Parish School Board and its employees arising out of injuries received by the minor, Gregory Byrd. We affirm.
FACTS
On December 12, 1979, Gregory Byrd, three months shy of his 15th birthday, received very serious injuries to his leg while using an extractor (a device which performs much the same function as the spin cycle on a washing machine) at Airline High School. Plaintiff, Connie Byrd, filed suit individually and on behalf of her then minor son against the manufacturer of the extractor, the Bossier Parish School Board (the purchaser of the extractor), one coach employed by the School Board at Airline High School, the principal of Airline High School and the Director of Maintenance for the Parish School Board. Greg Byrd was later named as party plaintiff after reaching the age of majority.
The case against the manufacturer and the employees of the school board was tried by jury and the case against the school board by judge. After the trial began, plaintiff settled with the manufacturer, Pellerin Milnor Corporation, who was dismissed from the suit. At the end of plaintiff's case, the trial court granted motions for directed verdict in favor of the coach, the principal, and the director of maintenance. The trial judge, however, denied the motion for directed verdict in favor of the Bossier Parish School Board. The jury was dismissed and suit against the school board continued. The trial judge found the Bossier Parish School Board negligent through the actions of Coach Albert Belle, not a named defendant, as he was the party responsible for the supervision of Greg Byrd. The court determined that Coach Belle failed to proper ly supervise and instruct Greg in the use of the extractor. However, the trial court also found that Greg Byrd was contribu-torily negligent, thus barring his recovery against the school board. Plaintiff appeals, contending that the lower court erred in granting the directed verdicts in favor of the School Board employees, in finding that Greg Byrd was contributorily negligent, and if Greg was contributorily negligent, in finding that contributory negligence barred his recovery.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE OF GREGORY BYRD
We initially focus on the pivotal question of the plaintiffs negligence and we do so in the fashion argued by appellant. He first contends that the trial court was clearly wrong in finding him negligent. Appellant argues that he was never instructed on the use of the extractor located in the varsity room, a machine he contends he had never used prior to the injury. He also asserts that he was told by the coaches to "hurry up" in preparation for a game after school and therefore was required to use the machine. Additionally, appellant argues that he was not negligent as he was attempting to use the brake or lever as he was instructed to do, and therefore his actions in attempting to stop the machine were not unreasonable. Appellant finally argues that his youth should be taken into consideration in determining the reasonableness of his actions.
Although a youth of Greg's age is certainly capable of contributory negligence, the application of the doctrine is not a mechanical rule which can be applied to determine the capability of a child to observe and avoid danger. Lawrence v. Grant Parish School Board, 409 So.2d 1316 (La.App. 3d Cir.1982). Such a child's caution must be judged by his maturity and capacity to evaluate circumstances in each particular case, and he must exercise only the care expected of his age, intelligence and experience. Wilkinson v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 411 So.2d 22 (La.1982); Plauche v. Consolidated Companies, Inc., 235 La. 692, 105 So.2d 269 (1958).
A child is not held to the same degree of care as an adult. Rather, the test is whether the particular child, considering his age, background, and inherent intelligence, indulged in the gross disregard of his own safety in face of known, understood, and perceived danger. Simmons v. Beauregard Parish School Board, 315 So.2d 883 (La.App. 3d Cir.1975), writ denied, 320 So. 2d 207 (La.1975); Lawrence v. Grant Parish School Board, supra.
The plaintiff was a student manager for the basketball team, working primarily with the freshman team. His duties included assisting in the preparation of the team's equipment and uniforms for practice and games. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was washing clothes in preparation for a 5:00 p.m. freshman game.
The extractor in question is located in the varsity locker room. It is situated between a washer and a dryer on a base which the pictures in evidence indicate is approximately six inches above the ground. There is a distance of approximately two to three feet between each machine.
The extractor is manufactured by Pelle-rin Milnor Corporation and is a "twenty-inch" extractor. We assume that this number refers to the diameter of the inner tub. The extractor is 36 inches high and 28V4 inches wide.
The extractor is equipped with an automatic braking system. A timer is provided which activates the electrical brake. Additionally, the machine is equipped with an interlock lever, which has no independent braking effect upon the basket. However, in emergency situations, the lever can be pushed back to break the electrical circuit and thereafter cause the electrical brake to apply. The design of the machine is such that the interlock lever should be pushed completely back before the lid of the extractor can be opened.
Coach Albert Belle, the teacher of Greg's physical education class, testified that he saw Greg immediately prior to the accident. He testified that Greg informed him that he had to do "work" for Coach Holiday. He testified that Greg would have been in his class at that time if he had not been washing clothes. After this time, the coach heard a noise in the gym and later entered the gym to find Greg. Coach Belle testified that he never instructed Greg personally as to how to work the machine, but that he did instruct some students on the operation of the extractor. He testified that he informed the students never to raise the lid while the tub was spinning. He was aware that there was a problem with the extractor failing to stop and had talked to Coach Clyde Roten, another coach at the school, about this problem. Coach Belle said that he spoke to Greg after the accident. Coach Belle testified that Greg told him that he had tried to stop the machine with his foot. While Coach Belle could not say for certain whether Greg meant that he had climbed on top of the machine to use his foot on the brake and had fallen in or whether he had put his foot in the tub itself to stop the machine, he was of the impression that the latter occurred.
Coach Roten testified that he personally instructed student managers Barry Ingram and Tim Wallace as to the dangers of the extractors and he also knew of the braking problems of the extractor. He noted that he informed his student managers not to open the machine while the tub was still spinning. He stated that there were signs in both locker rooms which informed the managers not to open the lid while the tub was spinning. Finally, he testified that he also spoke to Greg after the accident, who told him that he tried to stop the extractor with his foot.
Miles Holiday, the head coach for the basketball team, indicated that he instructed team managers Barry Ingram and Tim Wallace to instruct the other managers, but did not personally instruct Greg Byrd as to the operation of the extractor. He knew that the managers were operating the machinery without supervision, but he did not have time to check on the gym between classes. His testimony was that Greg told him that he tried to stop the machine with his foot and that his understanding was that Greg put his foot in the machine to stop it. He testified that he informed the managers not to get into the machine or put any part of their bodies into it. He testified that it surprised him that a student would in fact do such a thing.
The testimony of Greg Byrd indicates Tim Wallace instructed him on how to use the equipment. Greg testified that the manager said "not to stick your hands in there or — any other part of your body, it would tear it off." He additionally indicated that the manager informed him that the lever on the side of the machine was a brake but that no one ever told him not to use or put his foot on the brake in order to stop it. He testified that he never wanted to "stick" his leg in the machine. He stated that he had used the extractor in the P.E. room on at least ten occasions.
However, on this particular day he was in a hurry as there was a tournament after school and it was necessary for him to also use the extractor in the varsity gym. As he got into the varsity room, he noticed that the washing machine already contained towels. At that point, he transferred the towels to the extractor and then inserted his clothes in the washing machine. After 30 or 40 seconds passed, he attempted to take the clothes out of the extractor and push the lever back after turning off the switch. He lifted the lid, but the extractor continued to turn. He then attempted to push the lever again but it would not stop. He left the varsity room and went across the gym to the P.E. side. As he had clothes in the washer on that side, he took them out, put them into the extractor and started it. After they were finished, he pushed the lever back, lifted the lid and put those clothes in the dryer. He then exited the P.E. locker room and ran back across the gym. As he did so, he noted the extractor was still spinning and the lid was up. He pushed the lever back again, but it still would not stop. He desired to place more pressure on the lever and claims to have attempted to use his foot to do so. He stated: "I wanted to put more pressure on it, so I was going to use by [sic] foot on it. I remember starting to get on top the machine and after that, I don't remember anything else." Greg testified that he was rushed as the coach had told him to hurry because the clothes were needed for the tournament that night. He testified that he put his foot on top of the machine to activate the brake "because [he] was in a hurry. I had to get done."
The testimony of Tim Wallace, another student manager, indicated that his normal procedure was to lift the lid and wait for the extractor to stop spinning. He admitted that the spinning would take a couple of minutes to stop but that one could open the door before the spinning stopped. He was told not to put any part of his body in the machine and felt that it was "common sense" for any person to understand the consequences of doing so.
The trial judge noted in his opinion that the plaintiff, Greg Byrd, was negligent, either by using his leg in an attempt to stop the basket from spinning or by climbing on the machine while the lid was open and the machine was running. Plaintiff argues that because of his young age that no negligence should be imputed to him. However, the Court recognizes that within a period of three months after this injury, Greg Byrd would have been allowed to obtain a driver's license in the State of Louisiana and operate what is probably the most dangerous piece of machinery known to man, the automobile.
After reviewing the evidence in this case, we cannot determine that the trial court was clearly wrong in its determination that Greg Byrd's actions were factually negligent. The trial judge determined that either action, the placing of the foot into the extractor or the placing of the foot on the lever in order to stop the extractor, constituted contributory negligence on the part of Greg. He therefore refrained from the factual determination of what exactly transpired in the case.
In either instance, the danger inherent in the placing of a limb into a spinning cylinder had not only been communicated to Greg but was obvious from the nature of the extractor, and was not overridden by the fact that Greg was a few months younger than 15 years of age. Clearly, if Greg intended to place his foot into the tub to stop the machine, he was aware of the danger involved. He testified that he was informed not to do so as "it would tear it off." By his own admission, therefore, he perceived the danger involved in intentionally placing his foot in the machine to stop the spinning.
Even if the conclusion is reached that Greg attempted to use his foot in order to engage the brake in an attempt to stop the machine, the risk created by the climbing on top of the machine coupled with the fact that the extractor cover was open can be classified as nothing short of a gross disregard for his own safety. He was aware of the possibility of injury if he placed a limb into this machine. The possibility was greatly increased by his actions in climbing onto the machine when the cover was open. Greg was almost 15 years old. He had operated the extractors on at least ten occasions. Clearly, he was of at least normal intelligence, sufficient to understand and appreciate the danger involved in his action. The warning given to Greg and his obvious understanding of that warning should have put him on notice that the same danger was present when he climbed on top of an open, spinning extractor and placed a limb in close proximity.
Moreover, we think the evidence preponderates that Greg indeed was attempting to stop the machine by placing his foot in the tub. While, as appellant argues, Greg did not specifically say that he put his foot in the tub, all of those who testified on the subject were of that impression. Particularly telling is the testimony of Coach Holiday who pointed out that he reached this conclusion because no amount of additional pressure on the lever of this particular machine was effective in slowing the spinning of the tub.
Appellant strenuously argues the similarities between the instant case and that of Lawrence v. Grant Parish School Board, supra. In Lawrence, a 14 year old was attending an agricultural class wherein students were learning to weld. A power saw was stored in the back of the building where the class was held which was easily accessible to any of the students. The saw was used periodically by teachers and students. Prior to the class, the saw had been used by another student and, at the time of the accident, the saw was attached to an extension cord and was plugged into a wall socket. The blade of the saw was "cranked up" but contained no safety guard. The safety guard was not on the saw when it was stored by the school board. Clearly, the student in Lawrence was informed not to use the power equipment. However, at a time when the instructor was outside of the class, the 14 year old attempted to cut a piece of wood and his hand came into contact with the saw.
The Third Circuit found the school board negligent based upon a breach of its duty to the minor and under the doctrine of respondeat superior based upon the failure of the teacher to supervise the students at all times in spite of the presence of inherently dangerous equipment. The Third Circuit found that the 14 year old was not contributorily negligent. In so finding, the court noted that the child was a 14 year old who had never before operated a power saw and was never instructed in the operation of one. The school did not instruct the pupils as to why they were not to use the power saw or tell them that they could be injured. Although the court found that the evidence indicated that the 14 year old was instructed not to use the power saw, it stated that mere instructions alone to a 14 year old not to use a power saw that was easily accessible and could be turned on by merely flipping a switch were insufficient to trigger the doctrine of contributory negligence on the part of the child. The court noted that the child's only wrong was to use a saw that he was told not to use and that "simple disobedience did not constitute contributory negligence."
We find the Lawrence case distinguishable from the case at hand. Clearly, there is a difference in the type of power-driven equipment in each instance. The inherently dangerous nature of a power saw, when compared to the extractor, is quite obvious. The power saw, by its very nature, is used to cut or sever objects. Its purpose, therefore, is of a dangerous character. An extractor, on the other hand, although power driven, is used to wring clothing. Although potentially dangerous, as the facts of this case illustrate, the danger comes through its misuse rather than normal use. In Lawrence neither the dangerous propensity of the power saw nor the resulting injuries that could occur were ever explained to the children; they were simply told not to use the saw. Also, the children were left unattended in the presence of a dangerous object which contained no warning signs. Therefore, it cannot be said that the disobeying child in Lawrence fully comprehended the possible consequences of his act. In the present case, unlike Lawrence, warning signs were clearly posted informing managers not to open the lid while the extractor was spinning. Greg, nevertheless, chose to do so. Additionally, even assuming arguendo the scenario which the plaintiff contends, Greg at the very least climbed up on a three-foot machine with the lid open. Further, Greg was fully aware of the danger of placing one's limbs into the machine. He consciously undertook the potentially dangerous act, the consequences of which he understood.
Considering the foregoing reasons, we cannot conclude that the trial court was clearly wrong in finding Greg Byrd negligent.
APPLICABILITY OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AS A BAR TO RECOVERY
Our determination that the factual finding of contributory negligence was not clearly wrong does not end our inquiry. Appellant argues that even if the trial court finding of contributory negligence on the part of Greg Byrd was not in error, he is not barred from recovery. In this respect, he cites LSA-R.S. 23:163, which reads as follows:
§ 163. Minors under sixteen; prohibited employments
No minor under the age of sixteen years shall be employed, permitted, or suffered to work:
(1) In, or about, or in connection with a poolroom or billiard room.
(2) In, or about, or in connection with power-driven machinery.
(3) In any manufacturing or processing establishment, or in any manufacturing, mechanical, or processing occupation.
(4) In the close proximity of any lounge or other location where alcoholic beverages are sold, except as provided in R.S. 26:88 and R.S. 26:285.
(5) In any other occupation for which a higher minimum age is required.
His argument centers around the claim that Greg was in fact "employed, permitted or suffered to work" by the defendant on power-driven machinery, namely, the extractor. He therefore argues that Greg clearly falls within the provisions of LSA-R.S. 23:163. Appellant cites jurisprudence dealing with the application of LSA-R.S. 23:163 in instances where minors were employed in violation of the statute and were injured.
We decline to jurisprudentially extend the application of this article to the educational sphere. LSA-R.S. 23:163 is located in Title 23 of the Revised Statutes dealing with labor and worker's compensation law. Specifically, the article falls under Chapter III, entitled Employment Standards and Conditions and is located in Part 1 subpart B, of that chapter dealing with minors and employment privileges and restrictions. The location of the article in question in the Revised Statutes demonstrates the legislative intent as to the statute. Title 23 deals with labor and worker's compensation and the specific chapter under which LSA-R.S. 23:163 falls deals with employment standards and conditions. These statutes, adopted out of humane considerations, are found in Chapter 3 of Title 23 entitled Employment Standards and Conditions and fall specifically under part one of that chapter dealing with minors. They are enacted to protect children of tender ages from the hazards and harms of the sweat shops of industry. Kennedy v. Johnson Lumber Co., 33 So.2d 558 (La.App. 2d Cir.1947). Clearly, the provisions are in the form of child labor laws in the employment context.
Greg was not employed by the school board. His activities were not in the nature of employment but were of a voluntary extracurricular nature. He was not paid, nor did he work regular hours. Student managers enjoy a special relationship with the teams they serve. They are non-playing participants on those teams and earn the right to a letter by virtue of the satisfactory performance of their duties in assisting their teams. It is a significant extracurricular activity having obvious educational value.
The topic of extracurricular activities in the school system is dealt with specifically in Title 17 of the Revised Statutes under LSA-R.S. 17:176. These provisions are separate and apart from Title 23 and demonstrate the differing nature of these two types of activities. Moreover, LSA-R.S. 23:151 specifically excludes application
to minors employed in . employment or training related to the curriculum while attending a business or vocational-technical school approved by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education or the Advisory Commission on Proprietary Schools, which would include minors engaged in on-the-job training under the supervision of the same employer.
While not specifically on point, this article demonstrates that even in the employment realm, school and school programs are not intended to be included under this title. Thus, we determine that Greg Byrd does not fall under the specific provisions of LSA-R.S. 23:163. Thus, the defendant has not breached a statutory duty to this plaintiff.
This determination, however, does not end the inquiry into whether or not Greg's contributory negligence should act as a bar to recovery. Appellant argues that even if he were factually negligent, that negligence is not a legal bar to his recovery. In other words, the risk created by his con- tributary negligence was overwhelmed by the scope of the duty he was owed by the defendant through its employees.
Generally, in order for a school board to be liable, it must have had actual or constructive knowledge of a condition unreasonably dangerous to the children under its supervision. Lawrence v. Grant Parish School Board, supra; Ardoin v. Evangeline Parish School Board, 376 So.2d 372 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1979).
The plaintiff was a student manager who was injured in the process of washing uniforms for a basketball game several hours away. He was using a machine just like one he had used on a number of previous occasions. The only difference is that the instant machine was slow to quit spinning. The plaintiff was aware of the danger of placing limbs in the machine, having been warned by other more senior managers of that danger. Further, a warning to this effect was clearly posted. However, this almost 15-year-old plaintiff put his foot in the machine to stop it. To do so, he had to open the lid and climb up on top of the three foot high machine.
We observe even if the machine did not stop spinning when it should have, it is dangerous only if a limb is placed in the machine. It is physically difficult to place a leg in the machine, and the danger is obvious and posted. It seems to us the only way the accident could have been prevented under these circumstances was if a faculty member had closely supervised the washing of the uniforms, an unreasonable expectation. In other words, the supervision required would, to a significant extent, obviate the need for, and value of, student managers. For these reasons, we do not believe that the duty owed by the defendant encompasses the risk which this plaintiff presented.
The judgment appealed is affirmed at appellant's cost.
AFFIRMED.
NORRIS, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
This is a pre-comparative fault case.