Bordeaux v. Shannon County Schools

Citations: 2005 SD 117; 707 N.W.2d 123; 2005 S.D. LEXIS 180Docket: None

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court; November 30, 2005; South Dakota; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Monica Bordeaux, as guardian for her son G.B.F., filed a personal injury lawsuit against the Shannon County School District after G.B.F. was injured by a drunk driver while crossing the street after leaving a Hand Game tournament. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, which was upheld by the South Dakota Supreme Court.

The tournament, attended by G.B.F. and organized by Youth Opportunity and Pine Ridge Village, was publicized through flyers, one of which was circulated by Kathy Red Cloud, a teacher at Wolf Creek School. Red Cloud attended the tournament as a participant and was authorized to use a school vehicle for transporting pizzas but denied any responsibility for supervising or transporting students. Bordeaux alleged that Red Cloud assured her of taking the players home and that she had ensured their safety prior to releasing them.

Bordeaux's complaint claimed negligence on the part of the School District, asserting that G.B.F. was under their care during the tournament. She cited multiple failures, including inadequate monitoring of students, lack of warnings about hazards when leaving the venue, and absence of adult supervision, all contributing to her son's injury.

Bordeaux claims that Red Cloud, as the coach of the school's Hand Game team, was acting in that capacity during a tournament and asserts it was a school-sanctioned event. She notes that Red Cloud distributed permission slips for attendance and arranged transportation for the students, although the slips were not collected by the school. Bordeaux references a comment from tournament coordinator Will Peters, who implied that the individual accompanying the school teams was responsible for them. 

Prior to leaving the tournament, G.B.F. and two other boys sought permission from Red Cloud to visit a store, which she granted, suggesting that he was under her supervision and thus the School District's responsibility. The School District moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the tournament was not affiliated with Shannon County Schools and that no employees were involved in its organization. The superintendent stated that Billy Mills Hall, where the tournament took place, is not owned or controlled by the School District.

The circuit court agreed to consider external matters and treated the School District's motion as a motion for summary judgment. It was agreed that affidavits and responses would be submitted by November 15, 2004, and the court later granted summary judgment to the School District on January 13, 2005, officially signing the order on January 20, 2005. Bordeaux's attorney requested a continuance for further discovery on January 24, 2005, but there was no recorded ruling on this request. Bordeaux appeals, claiming genuine issues of material fact exist that warrant further discovery and trial.

The standard of review for summary judgment involves determining whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the law was applied correctly. Summary judgment is appropriate in negligence cases where no legal duty exists. The circuit court found no material facts that could prevent summary judgment, and the appellate review applies the same criteria as the trial court, examining the record for material facts and resolving disputes in favor of the nonmoving party.

The circuit court determined that the School District had no duty of care towards G.B.F. during the Hand Game tournament, as the event was not sanctioned or part of the School District's extracurricular activities, and Red Cloud was present only as a private citizen. The court noted that Red Cloud’s permission for G.B.F. to leave did not imply any supervision or negligence. Bordeaux argued that Red Cloud acted as the School District's agent when granting permission and that this act fell within her employment scope. To counter the summary judgment, opposing parties must provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, as mandated by SDCL 15-6-56(e). Bordeaux needed to prove three elements for her negligence claim: the existence of a duty owed by the School District, a breach of that duty, and a direct causation of G.B.F.'s injury from that breach. She posited that an agency relationship existed because the School District allowed Red Cloud to believe she acted as an agent. However, Red Cloud asserted she was not acting as an agent but participated in her personal capacity. Additionally, the assistant principal stated he did not assign Red Cloud to supervise any activities and acknowledged her use of a School District vehicle without any formal assignment.

Bordeaux failed to provide evidence suggesting that the School District appointed Red Cloud as its representative at the tournament. The court evaluates whether the School District intentionally or negligently led a third party to perceive someone as its agent, referencing Dahl v. Sittner and SDCL 59-1-5 on ostensible agency. Bordeaux's claims, derived from three affidavits, include that Red Cloud distributed but did not collect permission slips, drove a School District vehicle, expressed intent to drive students home, and that G.B.F. sought her permission to leave. However, the court found these claims insufficient. Bordeaux's assertion about the permission slips relies solely on her statement, while Red Cloud only acknowledged distributing a flyer; no permission slip was produced, and there were no indications of its content or any other parent's involvement. 

Bordeaux contended that Red Cloud's statement regarding driving G.B.F. home indicated an agency relationship with the School District, along with the fact that Red Cloud drove a School District vehicle as evidence of a duty to supervise G.B.F. However, establishing an agency relationship requires more than the actions of an agent and cannot be assumed at all times based solely on employment status. The only connection between the School District and the event was Red Cloud driving its vehicle. The court noted that to hold the School District liable for negligence, Bordeaux must prove four specific elements. Even if Red Cloud granted permission for G.B.F. to cross the street and offered to drive him home, this does not imply the School District accepted a duty to supervise him at the tournament, as duties cannot be assumed merely due to grievances.

Insufficient evidence was found linking Red Cloud's activities to the School District regarding the alleged sanctioning of a tournament and the oversight of student Hand Game players. The students participated in a privately organized tournament at a public venue not operated by the School District on a Saturday. Bordeaux, who carried the burden of proof, failed to provide adequate evidence to dispute the summary judgment motion. Consequently, her unsupported allegations did not establish a material fact dispute, leading to the affirmation of the summary judgment. The decision was concurred by Chief Justice Gilbertson and Justices Sabers, Zinter, and Meierhenry. Additionally, the School District submitted affidavits from various officials and documentation regarding the tournament, while Bordeaux provided her affidavit and two others, but no evidence supported her claim that Red Cloud actively supervised the team.