Jamal Redman v. South Branch Career and Technical Center

Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-0090

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court; September 27, 2013; West Virginia; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jamal Redman appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial by the Circuit Court of Grant County following a defense verdict in his negligence lawsuit against South Branch Career and Technical Center. Redman, a seventeen-year-old student in a building and construction program, alleged that the Center failed to supervise its students, leading to his injury when another student, Roger Redman, struck him. The incident occurred on December 8, 2009, during a class break when the instructor was absent. Redman repeatedly made sexually explicit remarks to another student, Dale Alt, regarding Alt’s relationship with Roger Redman's sister, despite being warned by Roger to stop. After the warnings, Roger struck Redman.

The trial lasted three days, with the jury ultimately finding for the respondent after approximately twenty-five minutes of deliberation. Evidence presented indicated that the teacher allowed students to leave the classroom unsupervised to access a vending area and was not present at the time of the incident, responding only seven seconds after being alerted. The respondent argued that it had no warning of potential violence and that Redman’s provocations and Roger's response were intervening acts that absolved the respondent from liability. The court, having reviewed the briefs and record, found no substantial legal question or prejudicial error, justifying a memorandum decision under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Petitioner sought a new trial based on five alleged errors, appealing three specific issues: (1) the circuit court's refusal to provide petitioner’s proposed instruction number 1 while accepting respondent’s instructions 13 and 14; (2) the exclusion of evidence regarding Roger Redman breaking a window at Moorefield High School before the incident; and (3) sanctions against petitioner’s counsel for unprofessional behavior during Dr. Bolton's deposition. The circuit court denied the motion for a new trial on December 6, 2012, prompting the appeal.

In the appeal, petitioner argues that the court erred by not including language in instruction number 1 that stated schools must anticipate children’s behavior, which aligns with the legal standard set in Moore by and through Knight v. Wood County Board of Education and West Virginia Code § 18A-5-1(a). Petitioner contended that this language was crucial to establish liability if it was found that no teacher was supervising students during the incident.

Respondent's instruction 13 included a foreseeability standard, which petitioner disputes, arguing that it is not required by the Moore case. Additionally, instruction 14 claimed that reasonable supervision does not necessitate constant oversight, a point contested by petitioner, who maintains that the law mandates comprehensive control of students during school hours. Petitioner asserts that the court's decisions regarding the jury instructions constituted reversible error.

Legal precedents cited include Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, Inc., which emphasizes the broad discretion of circuit courts in formulating jury instructions, and State v. Guthrie, which underscores that instructions must accurately reflect the law and be supported by evidence. The overall assessment of jury instructions considers their collective accuracy and fairness rather than examining individual components in isolation.

A trial court has significant discretion in crafting jury instructions, provided they accurately represent the law. The court's specific wording is given deference and is reviewed for abuse of discretion. In this case, the respondent did not contest the legal correctness of the term "childish impulses" in petitioner’s instruction number 1 but objected based on the specifics of the case, wherein the petitioner, nearly seventeen, provoked Roger Redman in a sexually vulgar manner, distinguishing it from the Moore case involving younger adolescents. The circuit court's decision to exclude the proposed language was upheld as there was no reversible error.

Regarding respondent’s instructions 13 and 14, the court found them appropriately based on relevant case law from other jurisdictions, considering that West Virginia's negligent supervision cases typically involve younger students, while this case involved a vocational school with higher expectations of student maturity. 

Petitioner also argued that the court improperly required proof of prior bad conduct by Roger Redman. Instruction 13 stated that actual or constructive notice of prior similar conduct is generally necessary for establishing negligence. Although petitioner claimed to have evidence of an incident where Redman punched a window earlier, the court excluded this evidence due to lack of notification to the respondent, as Moorefield High School did not inform them. Thus, the court's inclusion of this language in instruction 13 was not deemed erroneous.

Lastly, petitioner contended that the court abused its discretion by sanctioning his counsel for unprofessional conduct during a deposition. However, since this issue did not affect the denial of the motion for a new trial, it was not addressed. Overall, the court affirmed its previous rulings.