Opinion ID: 1109219
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Subsection 11-46-9(1)(d)discretionary

Text: ¶ 24. Section 11-46-9(1)(d) provides the school district shall not be liable for any claim [b]ased upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a governmental entity or employee thereof, whether or not the discretion be abused. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(d) (Supp.1998) (emphasis added). In the case sub judice, whether the school district is protected by this discretionary function exception depends on whether the duty the school district owed Lang is properly characterized as discretionary or ministerial. ¶ 25. In Mosby v. Moore, 716 So.2d 551, 557 (Miss.1998) ( quoting Barrett v. Miller, 599 So.2d 559, 567 (Miss.1992)), the Court described the discretionary and ministerial distinction as follows: While there is no flexible rule to distinguish whether an act is ministerial or discretionary, the most important criteria is if the duty is one which has been positively designated, the duty to perform under the condition specified, not being dependent upon the officer's judgment or discretion, the act or discharge thereof is ministerial. See also L.W. v. McComb Separate Municipal School Dist., 754 So.2d at 1142, at ¶ 27; T.M. v. Noblitt, 650 So.2d 1340, 1345 (Miss.1995); Davis v. Little, 362 So.2d 642, 644 (Miss.1978); Poyner v. Gilmore, 171 Miss. 859, 864, 158 So. 922, 923 (1935). ¶ 26. Section 37-9-69 positively imposes upon school personnel the duty to hold students to strict account for disorderly conduct at school: It shall be the duty of each superintendent, principal or teacher in the public schools of this state to enforce in the schools the courses of study prescribed by law or by the state board of education, to comply with the law in distribution and use of free textbooks, and to observe and enforce the statutes, rules and regulations prescribed for the operation of schools. Such superintendents, principals and teachers shall hold the pupils to strict account for disorderly conduct at school, on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, and during recess. Miss.Code Ann. § 37-9-69 (1996) (emphasis added). ¶ 27. Section 11-46-9(1)(b) provides that a governmental entity and its employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any claim [a]rising out of any act of omission of an employee of a governmental entity exercising ordinary care in reliance upon, or in the execution or performance of, or in the failure to execute or perform, a statute, ordinance or regulation, whether or not the statute, ordinance, or regulation be valid. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-9(1)(b) (Supp.1998) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the school district and its employees are protected from liability while performing or failing to perform a statutory duty so long as ordinary care is exercised. However, when ordinary care is not exercised, neither the school district nor its employees will be protected from liability for performing or failing to perform a statutorily imposed duty. ¶ 28. The District's administrators and teachers in the case sub judice had a statutorily imposed duty to hold students to strict account for disorderly conduct at school. See L.W. v. McComb Separate Municipal School Dist., 754 So.2d at 1141, 1142, at ¶ 25. If they failed to exercise ordinary care in either performing or failing to perform this duty, then sovereign immunity will not protect the District. See Id., at ¶ 26. The question of whether ordinary care was, in fact, exercised is for the trial court, sitting without a jury, to decide. See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-46-13(1) (Supp.1998). ¶ 29. The school district argues that with Subsection 11-46-9(1)(d) the Legislature expressly stated that it does not matter whether or not the discretion be abused in order for the governmental entity to be exempt from liability. The school district claims this express language demonstrates the Legislature's intent to eliminate consideration of any additional requirements in determining whether a governmental action or inaction was discretionary. However, Lang's allegation that the school district failed to provide necessary supervision for her son does not fall under this discretionary exception. As previously stated, the administrators and teachers in the case sub judice are required by statute to hold students to strict account for disorderly conduct at school. In other words, the school district's duty to control and discipline students is ministerial not discretionary, and therefore the discretionary exception does not apply.