Wanda Sharp, Individually and as Next Friend of Joseph Riggs v. Anderson County and Anderson School Board of Education

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedFebruary 5, 1996
Docket03A01-9508-CV-00282
StatusPublished

This text of Wanda Sharp, Individually and as Next Friend of Joseph Riggs v. Anderson County and Anderson School Board of Education (Wanda Sharp, Individually and as Next Friend of Joseph Riggs v. Anderson County and Anderson School Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wanda Sharp, Individually and as Next Friend of Joseph Riggs v. Anderson County and Anderson School Board of Education, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

FILED February 5, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk W ANDA SHARP, I ndi vi dua l l y a nd a s ) ANDERSON CI RCUI T M t h e r a nd Ne xt Fr i e nd of o ) C. A. NO. 03A01- 9508- CV- 0028 2 J OSEPH RI GGS, ) ) Pl a i nt i f f s - Appe l l a nt s ) ) ) ) ) ) vs . ) HON. J AMES B. SCOTT, J R. ) J UDGE ) ) ) ) ) ANDERSON COUNTY a nd ANDERSON ) AFFI RMED AND REMANDED SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATI ON, ) De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s )

GLENN R. W ALTER, Kr a me r , Ra ys on, Le a ke , Rodge r s & M ga n, or Kn o x - v i l l e , f or a ppe l l a nt .

MARTI N L. ELLI S a nd VONDA M . LAUGHLI N, But l e r , Vi ne s & Ba b b , Kn o x v i l l e , f or a ppe l l e e s .

O P I N I O N

M M r a y, J . c ur Thi s i s a n a ppe a l f r om a j udgme nt gr a nt i ng a mot i on f or s umma r y

j u d g me n t i n f a vor of t he de f e nda nt s - a ppe l l e e s a nd di s mi s s i n g t h e

p l a i nt i f f s ' c ompl a i nt . W a f f i r m t he j udgme nt of t he t r i a l c our t . e

Thi s a c t i on wa s i ns t i t ut e d unde r t he pr ovi s i ons of t he

Go v e r n me nt a l Tor t Li a bi l i t y Ac t , T. C. A. § 29- 20- 103, e t s e q. Th e

p l a i nt i f f s a l l e ge d t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f , J os e ph Ri ggs , a mi nor , wa s

a s t u d e nt a t Cl i nt on Hi gh Sc hool a nd wa s i nj ur e d whi l e e nga ge d i n

" h o r s e p l a y" wi t h a not he r s t ude nt . The y f ur t he r a l l e ge d M . Fr a n k r

Fr a g o me ni , a t e a c he r , wa s ne gl i ge nt in a c t i ve l y i ns t i ga t i ng ,

e n c o u r a gi ng a nd i nc i t i ng a da nge r ous a c t i vi t y ( hor s e pl a y) whi c h h e

kne w or s houl d ha ve known wo u l d l e a d t o s e r i ous i nj ur y. Th e

p l a i nt i f f s f ur t he r c ha r ge d t he de f e nda nt s wi t h ne gl i ge nc e in

f a i l i ng t o a de qua t e l y moni t or t he a c t i vi t i e s of t e a c he r s r e ga r d i n g

e n f o r c e me nt of s c hool r ul e s .

The de f e nda nt s f i l e d a n a ns we r i n whi c h t he y a l l e ge d, i nt e r

al i a, i mmuni t y, a s s umpt i on of r i s k, a nd c ompa r a t i ve f a ul t . Th e y

f ur t h e r a l l e ge d t ha t t he pr oxi ma t e c a us e of t he i nj ur y wa s t h e

n e g l i g e nc e of t he mi nor pl a i nt i f f . Subs e que nt t o t he i r a ns we r , t h e

d e f e n d a nt s , pur s ua nt t o Rul e 56, T. R. C. P. , f i l ed a mot i on f o r

s u mma r y j udgme nt on t he gr ounds t ha t t he r e wa s no ge nui ne i s s ue o f

a ma t e r i a l f a c t . I n s uppor t t he r e of , t he de f e nda nt s r e l i e d u p o n

t he d e p os i t i ons of Fr a nk Fr a gome ni a nd J os e ph Ri ggs . The y f ur t h e r

f i l e d t he a f f i da vi t s of Sc ot t Euge ne Da ughe r t y, J us t i n W l l i a m i

2 Howa r d a nd Br a dl e y Aa r on Ha c kne y, al l s t ude nt s at Cl i nt on Hi g h

Sc h o o l a nd wi t ne s s e s t o t he i nc i de nt i n que s t i on.

The pl a i nt i f f s f i l e d a r e s po n s e t o t he de f e nda nt s ' mot i on f o r

s u mma r y j udgme nt r e l yi ng upon t he t e s t i mony a t t a c he d to t he

d e f e n d a nt s ' mot i on a nd t he a f f i da vi t of J os e ph Ri ggs .

STANDARD OF REVI EW

The s t a nda r ds gove r ni ng a n a ppe l l a t e c our t ' s r e v i e w of a t r i a l c our t ' s a c t i on on a mot i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt a r e we l l s e t t l e d. Si nc e ou r i nqui r y i nvol ve s pur e l y a que s t i on o f l a w, no pr e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s a t t a c he s t o t he t r i a l c o u r t ' s j udgme nt , a nd our t a s k i s c onf i ne d t o r e vi e wi ng t he r e c or d t o de t e r mi ne wh e t he r t he r e qui r e me nt s of Te nn. R. Ci v . P. 56 ha ve be e n me t . Cowde n v. Sovr a n Ba nk/ Ce nt r a l So u t h, 816 S. W 2d 741, 744 ( Te nn. 1991) . Te nn. R. Ci v. P. . 5 6 . 0 3 pr ovi de s t ha t s umma r y j u d g me nt i s onl y a ppr opr i a t e wh e r e : ( 1) t he r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue wi t h r e ga r d t o t he ma t e r i a l f a c t s r e l e va nt t o t he c l a i m or de f e ns e c on t a i n e d i n t he mot i on, Byr d v . Ha l l , 847 S. W 2d 208, 210 ( Te nn. . 1 9 9 3 ) ; a nd ( 2) t he mov i ng pa r t y i s e nt i t l e d t o a j udgme nt a s ma t t e r of l a w on t he undi s put e d f a c t s . Ande r s on v. St a nda r d Re gi s t e r Co . , 857 S. W 2d 555, 559 ( Te nn. 1993) . . The movi ng pa r t y ha s t he bur de n of pr ovi ng t ha t i t s mot i on s a t i s f i e s t he s e r e qui r e me nt s . Downe n v. Al l s t a t e I ns . Co. , 8 1 1 S. W 2d 523, 524 ( Te nn. 1991) . .

The s t a nda r ds gove r ni ng t he a s s e s s me nt of e vi de nc e i n t he s u mma r y j udgme nt c ont e xt a r e a l s o we l l e s t a bl i s he d. Cour t s mus t vi e w t he e vi de nc e i n t he l i ght mos t f a vor a bl e t o t he n o n movi ng pa r t y a nd mus t a l s o dr a w a l l r e a s ona bl e i nf e r - e nc e s i n t he nonmovi ng pa r t y' s f a v o r . Byr d , 847 S. W 2d a t. 2 1 0 - 11. Cour t s s houl d gr a nt a s umma r y j udgme nt onl y whe n b o t h t he f a c t s a nd t he c onc l us i ons t o be dr a wn f r om t he f a c t s pe r mi t a r e a s ona bl e pe r s on t o r e a c h onl y one c onc l u- s i o n . I d.

Ca r v e l l v. Bot t oms , 900 S. W 2d 23 ( Te nn. 1995) . .

3 THE FACTS

The r e a r e no di s put e d f a c t s a s t o t he wa y a nd ma nne r i n wh i c h

t he a c c i de nt ha ppe ne d. The mi nor pl a i nt i f f ( a ge 16 a t t he t i me o f

t h e a c c i de nt ) wa s a me mbe r of M . Fr a gome ni ' s He a l t h a nd Phys i c a l r

Ed u c a t i o n cl as s . I m di a t e l y me pr i or to t he mi nor pl a i nt i f f ' s

i n j u r y , t he c l a s s i n whi c h t he mi nor pl a i nt i f f wa s a me mbe r br o k e

f or l u n c h a nd t he s t ude nt s we nt out s i de . Appr oxi ma t e l y s e ve n o f

t he ma l e me mbe r s of t he c l a s s be ga n t o e nga ge i n hor s e pl a y. Th e

h o r s e p l a y be ga n t o ge t r ough a t whi c h t i me M . r Fr a gome ni or de r e d

t he s t u de nt s t o s t op. Al l di d e xc e pt f or t he mi nor pl a i n t i f f .

Ei t he r t he pl a i nt i f f j ump e d on t he ba c k of a not he r a nd l a r g e r 1 s t u d e n t or t he pl a i nt i f f t a c kl e d t h e l a r ge r s t ude nt a t t he l e gs .

Th e t wo f e l l ba c k a nd t he mi nor pl a i nt i f f ' s a r m wa s br oke n.

The pl a i nt i f f f r e e l y a dmi t s t ha t he wa s e nga ge d i n hor s e p l a y

b u t d e n i e s t ha t M . Fr a gome ni t ol d t he m t o s t op. r Addi t i ona l l y h e

a s s e r t s t ha t M . r Fr a gome ni e nc our a ge d t he hor s e pl a y. M. r Fr a g a -

mi n i d e ni e s t ha t he di d s o. The pl a i nt i f f di s a gr e e s a s s e r t i ng t ha t

M . Fr a gome ni s t a t e d: " go ge t hi m J oe , " a nd " J oe ' s t he t op dog i n r

hi s c l a s s . " The s e a r e t he onl y f a c t s i n di s put e .

1 We do not consider this to be a material fact. According to the minor plaintiff's version, he tackled the larger student by the legs. In his deposition he stated:

" I picked him up and run back with him and I was going to dump him. When I felt his weight shift, I let go of him to break my fall, that's all I remember."

4 In hi s d e p o s i t i on, t he pl a i nt i f f wa s a s ke d t he f ol l owi ng

q u e s t i o ns a nd ga ve t he f ol l owi ng a ns we r s :

Q.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wyatt v. McGregor
855 S.W.2d 5 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Cowden v. Sovran Bank/Central South
816 S.W.2d 741 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1991)
Anderson v. Standard Register Co.
857 S.W.2d 555 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1993)
Carvell v. Bottoms
900 S.W.2d 23 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1995)
Roberts v. Robertson County Board of Education
692 S.W.2d 863 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1985)
Byrd v. Hall
847 S.W.2d 208 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1993)
Rimer v. City of Collegedale
835 S.W.2d 22 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wanda Sharp, Individually and as Next Friend of Joseph Riggs v. Anderson County and Anderson School Board of Education, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wanda-sharp-individually-and-as-next-friend-of-jos-tennctapp-1996.