Doe v. Baum

72 S.W.3d 476, 348 Ark. 259 (2002) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · April 18, 2002 · No. No. 01-1159

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed summary and partial summary judgments arising from the alleged rape of a student on a school bus. The court held that Arkansas's School Worker Defense Program did not require coverage for alleged negligent acts because governmental immunity applied, and that the school-bus-driver liability statute had been repealed by implication. The court also declined to reach an argument concerning a separate school-bus insurance statute because it had not been preserved, and upheld summary judgment on gross-negligence and reckless-indifference claims.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Ray Thornton, Justice
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
April 18, 2002
Docket number
No. 01-1159
Procedural posture
Plaintiffs appealed a Rule 54(b)-certified order granting summary judgment to the Arkansas Department of Education, granting partial summary judgment to Clyde Baum and Fountain Lake School District, and leaving motor-vehicle-liability and insurance-coverage claims pending.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed to determine whether the moving party showed that no genuine issue of material fact remained and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, doubts are resolved against the moving party, and once the movant makes a prima facie showing, the opponent must meet proof with proof.
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
John Doe, Jane Doe, Mary Doe v. Clyde Baum, Fountain Lake School District, Arkansas School Boards Association, Arkansas Department of Education
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

summary judgmentstatutory interpretationappellate procedurepreservation of errormunicipal law

Practice areas

civil procedureappellate proceduregovernmental immunityschool liabilityinsurance coveragetorts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Arkansas Code Annotated section 6-17-1113 required the Arkansas Department of Education to provide coverage for alleged negligent acts by a school-bus driver.
  2. Whether Arkansas Code Annotated section 6-19-105 had been repealed by implication by later governmental-immunity and motor-vehicle-liability statutes.
  3. Whether the plaintiffs could proceed under Arkansas Code Annotated section 6-19-118.
  4. Whether summary judgment was proper on the claims that Baum acted with gross negligence or reckless indifference.

Holdings

  1. Section 6-17-1113 did not require the Arkansas Department of Education to provide coverage for Baum's alleged negligent acts because Arkansas's governmental-immunity statute immunizes school districts and their employees from negligent tort liability except to the extent of applicable liability insurance.
  2. Section 6-19-105 was repealed by implication because the later governmental-immunity statute, together with the related motor-vehicle-liability scheme, covered the same subject and created an irreconcilable conflict with the earlier statute imposing negligence liability on school-bus drivers.
  3. The court declined to reach the merits of the section 6-19-118 argument because the plaintiffs failed to obtain a ruling on that issue from the trial court.
  4. Summary judgment for Baum was proper because the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, did not establish a genuine issue of material fact that Baum intentionally failed to perform a manifest duty or intentionally acted in disregard of a known or obvious risk.

Key quotations

Therefore, we hold that ADE was not statutorily required to insure against the negligent acts of school district employees. (at 483)
Repeal by implication is not a favored device in our interpretation of statutes, and we must construe all statutes relating to the same subject matter together. (at 485)
Applying our standard of review of summary-judgment cases to the present case, we hold that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on the issues of gross negligence and reckless indifference. (at 487)

Factual background

Mary Doe, a third-grade student, was allegedly raped by an eighth-grade student while riding a Fountain Lake School District bus driven by Clyde Baum in the fall of 1998. Mary did not report the incident to Baum or other students at the time, and testimony indicated that Baum did not know what was occurring and did not observe signs that Mary was injured or distressed. The Does also relied on an earlier incident involving another student and argued that Baum's knowledge of that incident made his failure to observe or respond to the later assault grossly negligent or recklessly indifferent.

Procedural history

The Does filed suit after Mary Doe was allegedly sexually assaulted on a school bus, asserting negligence, gross negligence, reckless indifference, outrage, vicarious liability, and insurance-coverage claims. The Garland County Circuit Court dismissed the claims against the Arkansas Department of Education with prejudice, granted partial summary judgment to Baum and the Fountain Lake School District on civil-liability allegations, and certified the resolved issues for appeal under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, while noting that motor-vehicle-liability coverage claims remained pending below.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…