Katrina Murray and Aquila F. Flynn, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jaylan T.R. Murray, Deceased v. Indianapolis Public Schools and Arlington Community High School

128 N.E.3d 450 (Ind. 2019) · Indiana Supreme Court · August 8, 2019 · No. 19S-CT-282

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Indianapolis Public Schools and Arlington Community High School in a negligence and wrongful-death action arising from a student's murder after he left school grounds. The court held that the sixteen-year-old student was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because he left school to engage in criminal activity, barring the estate's claims under Indiana common law. The court did not address governmental immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act because contributory negligence was dispositive.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Justice David; Chief Justice Rush; Justice Massa; Justice Slaughter; Justice Goff
Jurisdiction
Indiana
Decision date
August 8, 2019
Docket number
19S-CT-282
Procedural posture
The estate appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the public school defendants in a wrongful-death negligence action. The Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer after the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that contributory negligence barred the estate's claims as a matter of law.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is reviewed de novo, with the appellate court standing in the shoes of the trial court. Summary judgment is proper when the designated evidence shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; ambiguities are construed in favor of the nonmoving party.
Precedential value
published, precedential Indiana Supreme Court opinion
Parties
Katrina Murray and Aquila F. Flynn, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jaylan T.R. Murray, Deceased v. Indianapolis Public Schools, Arlington Community High School
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

wrongful deathcontributory negligencesummary judgmentnegligencemunicipal liability

Practice areas

tortscivil procedureappellate proceduremunicipal law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the governmental defendants were entitled to summary judgment because Jaylan Murray was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
  2. Whether the Indiana Tort Claims Act immunized the defendants from suit.

Holdings

  1. The Indiana Comparative Fault Act does not apply to governmental entities; common-law contributory negligence governs negligence claims against a public school and public school system.
  2. A plaintiff's contributory negligence bars recovery when the plaintiff's negligence is even slightly a cause of the alleged damages. Because Jaylan's conduct in leaving school to engage in criminal activity was unreasonable and at least a slight cause of his injuries, his estate's claims were barred as a matter of law.
  3. Summary judgment was proper because the undisputed facts permitted only one reasonable inference: Jaylan was contributorily negligent.

Key quotations

Under this law, a plaintiff is barred from recovery when he or she is negligent and this negligence is even slightly the cause of the alleged damages. (at 2)
As such, Jaylan was contributorily negligent. (at 4)
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court. (at 4)

Factual background

Sixteen-year-old Jaylan Murray left Arlington Community High School without permission through an unmonitored exit and was shot and killed several hours later. He had recently been involved in a pharmacy robbery, and the evidence indicated that he left school to engage in criminal activity, either purchasing firearms or marijuana. His estate alleged that Indianapolis Public Schools and Arlington Community High School negligently failed to monitor and supervise him.

Procedural history

The Marion Superior Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment without detailed findings or conclusions, concluding that the estate's claims were barred. A divided Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the defendants were not immune under the Indiana Tort Claims Act and that material factual disputes existed regarding contributory negligence. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the trial court on the dispositive contributory-negligence issue, declining to address governmental immunity.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…