Kaycee Boudreaux, Deanna Boudreaux and Kevin Boudreaux VS St. Tammany Parish School Board, William Peterson, Kendall ABC and George Morgan
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 CA 0889 KAYCEEBOUDREAUX DEANNABOUDREAUX AND KEVIN BOUDREAUX VERSUS ST TAMMANY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD WILLIAM PETERSON KENDALL ABC AND GEORGE MORGAN Judgment Rendered December 21 2007 G On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial In and For the Parish of St District Comi Tammany Trial Court No 2003 14536 Division C Honorable Patricia T Hedges Judge Presiding Michael A Britt Counsel for Plaintiff Appellants Kenner LA Kaycee Boudreaux Deanna Boudreaux and Kevin Boudreaux Harry P Pastuszek Counselfor Defendant J1 Tammany Parish School Board David S Pittman St Mandeville LA Dr Peterson George Morgan Defendant Slidell LA In BEFORE Appellees Proper and Kendall Harris Appellee Person WHIPPLE GUIDRY AND HUGHES JJ 9 1W 7 C Z HUGHES J This is granted an of appeal a judgment of motion for summary a Deanna and District Court that Tammany Parish in favor of the St judgment Dr Michael Peterson School Board 22nd Judicial the and Kendall Harris and Kevin against Kaycee Boudreaux dismissing their claims FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On School October 7 was occurred at September stabbed with the school 29 2003 Kaycee Boudreaux 2002 a knife On August trial comi a by George Morgan Kaycee and her parents filed suit board and its student The school the school employee alleging negligence a on the High stabbing plaintiffs against as Dr Michael Peterson 29 2006 these defendants filed granted a non during regular school hours and caused injury to Kaycee Tammany Parish School Board Kendall Harris student of NOlihshore a On the St principal and part of defendants motion for summary judgment The the motion and dismissed the claims plaintiffs against the school employees LA W AND ANALYSIS The smmnary judgment procedure inexpensive determination of every mi 969 the procedure is action shall be rendered in depositions to interrogatories affidavits if any show that there is mover is entitled to judgment Appellate courts to secure as a no the just to favor of the and admissions genuine matter oflaw issue accomplish mover on as to file LSA C C P ali 966 B 2 I pleadings together with the material fact and that 2 review summary judgments de LSA C C P art 966 A 2 and these ends if the novo under the that govern the district comi s consideration of whether summary 1 speedy except those disallowed by LSA C C P is favored and shall be constIued Summary judgment answers designed same criteria judgment is 3 appropriate evaluate the instead to ruling In on a motion for summary judgment the judge of the evidence weight determine whether there is should be resolved in the non ultimate issue is genuine success one as persons could reach or determines the to which only summary judgment is potentially insures one issue at trial and more non be able to must produce to do there is so the opposing party but must cannot rest a Allen p 5 v State La 4 9 03 University 4 Hines ex applicable on party s claim action as the at 2d So 342 345 377 5 Cressionnie one establish that he will If the opponent of the C C P art 967 allegations or denials of his are still substantive law that determines be can only seen in pleadings at issue New Orleans Exhibition Hall v Board of Authority Supervisors light of 2002 1072 of Louisiana State La 1991 La 6 25 04 876 2d So v 7 Richard National v Hall Property So 2d 448 451 Inc Intrepid Inc 2003 1488 and 2003 1714 p 3 La p 5 La 4 23 04 Casualty Company writ denied 2004 1858 App 764 765 1 Cir 2003 1971 La 10 29 04 2003 1714 at p 3 879 So 2d at 738 9 3 2d So 874 885 p 14 5 04 879 2d So 736 738 American 131 4 2d So 137 Dyess v La App 1 Cir 6 25 04 592 Cressionnie v 6 materiality 7 Schroeder or defense then the consistently noted in LSA mere the on Id at 765 6 6 support for or to trial proof case reI Ernest N Morial 842 So 2d 373 591 that issue and issue of material fact and summary genuine dispute is material to the Garrett 2004 0806 p 1 v no applicable fact in particular substantive law 3 absence of factual present evidence that will establish that material facts Because it is the if reasonable disagree on a A legal dispute need for trial factual support sufficient Moreover judgment will be granted whether an satisfy his evidentiary burden of proof motion fails of the will not bear the burden of moving party elements essential to the adverse moving party no affects recovery the burden of proof remains with the 2 out that there is points All doubts 5 appropriate if the However precludes or reasonable persons could Pursuant to LSA C C P art 966 C movant but 4 outcome conclusion there is not to matter issue of triable fact genuine a moving party s favor A fact is material if it litigant s determine the truth of the to or role is s 886 Intrepid the It has been established that students in its the Louisiana In the care case school board a of Wallmuth owes a duty Rapides v of of the supervision Parish School Board 8 Court held that Supreme through its agents and teachers owes a duty of The supervision required is reasonable supervision over students reasonable competent supervision appropriate to the age of the This duty does not make children and the attendant circumstances Constant the school board the insurer of the safety of the children supervision of all students is not possible nor required for educators to citations discharge their duty to provide adequate supervision school board a omitted As such of proof b efore But Kaycee the school board owed liability connection between the lack of before school board a supervision of constructively summary the case judgment be detennined as or at school board there on proof of also and the accident known and 9 duty must be a causal Furthermore to adequately injury must contend that the trial the merits genuine court ed in en granting issues of fact which appellants present for review genuine precluded issues of material fact the granting or of a summary judgment in failing to make certain that George Morgan left the school premises after being denied a visitor pass created a genuine issue of Whether the actions of the school employees material fact Whether the failure of the school to have sufficient written policies or procedures to be taken by school 3 8 9 2001 1779 Adams denied 10 v La 4 3 02 94 684 Henix v 813 2d So 341 Caddo Parish School Bd La George 29 4 465 25 370 La App 2 Cir 637 So 2d 466 94 2d So 906 910 La App 4 the issues of material fact which must The issues Whether there existed 2 be preventable if a requisite degree follows 1 over O because there exist trial a appellants supervISIOn risk of unreasonable the actually supervision had been exercised In this a be found to have breached the can supervise the safety of students foreseeable upon providing supervision and in negligence duty of reasonable imposed be can a 2 Cir 1985 19 1 94 631 2d So 70 writ are employees when a person was denied access to the school created a genuine issue of material fact Whether the failure of the school to have the door facing the outside of the school locked and thereby rendering the classroom building accessible to any person entering the campus created a genuine issue of material fact 4 When the required factual no no credibility determinations are legal question of the existence of a duty is appropriately addressed by summary JUd gment of the supervision dispute exists and 11 Here students there is no existed that dispute that Appellants allege of reasonable duty a appellees were negligent in carrying out this duty After this review of the record It is case School a on undisputed October Northshore High became angry Mr 7 Also that Mr requested undisputed conclude that there Morgan It is 2002 School we was not undisputed a visitor s a that pass are no school and walk to the school High Morgan walked into denied that pass and Mr was is the fact that the school building student walking uneventfully unobserved in the parking through hallway a side door where he and went to the restroom Morgan again He came up Boudreaux stabbed her in the behind Morgan saw and the student two never dated and reveals that the not two attended the On their way back to class was friends same Mr Morgan s it is Boland v West Feleciana Parish Police 04 2286 saw Mr Kaycee undisputed La 1124 04 Jury school years before this incident but that Morgan testified in his deposition Mr 03 1297 La 888 So 2d 231 5 that deposition testimony recognized Kaycee Boudreaux that day and remembered that 808 816 writ denied and another they asked her if she Kaycee they only knew each other through friends that he Kaycee entered the and walked away arm were re exit the passed George Morgan Regarding the relationship of Mr Morgan and Kaycee 11 did not escort employees lot However Mr Kaycee facts in student of Northshore Morgan completely off of the premises but rather watched him building the disputed App 1 Cir 6 25 04 years earlier 878 So 2d she had laughed and it is about undisputed a guy that he did Kaycee and in fact did not there a not go to burden of proving negligence Generally the school that Morgan testified morning looking for Because we have duty of reasonable supervision of Kaycee and that genuine issues of fact are no But Mr know she attended Northshore even found that there does exist him in the head kicking on look we to whether appellants carried their the part of the school board proof of liability for negligence includes five elements proof that the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard the duty element proof that the defendant s conduct failed to conform to the appropriate standard the breach element proof that the defendant s sub standard conduct was a the cause in fact cause in fact of the plaintiff s injuries 1 2 3 element 4 proof that cause of the The determination of of be evaluated protection avoid making In plaintiff s on owed a legal cause the scope of injuries is a a particular plaintiff defendant an ease insurer of all persons 1011 13 14 15 on a case against all Legal 14 of association is determined two to harms individuals who have served High School who affirmatively state twenty year history of the school been any prior McKee 13 The case cause extent basis to 15 support of the motion for summary judgment appellees have introduced Northshore 12 J purely legal question the basis of forseeability and uncontroverted affidavits from the entering legal liability or was a scope of protection element and proof of actual damages the damages element 5 can the defendant s substandard conduct the school v premises and committing Wal Mart Stores Inc writ denied 2007 1655 a 06 1672 p 4 La App La 10 26 07 So 2d that there have occurrences criminal act upon 1 Cir 6 8 07 of a as principal never a in the third party student 16 964 So 2d 1008 Id Id Id 16 Appellants submitted the affidavit of Kaycee Boudreaux which states that she was aware of lunch time fights at NOIihshore football game fights between NOIihshore students and students from other schools or non students various locker checks for drugs or weapons at NOIihshore and one incident of a girl being hit by a piece of metal thrown by another student during a class 6 of On the day the restroom did not foresee the attack of the attack She had Courts have sudden or Kaycee had left her classroom passed George Morgan in held that there is consistently without The warning reasonably in supervising the hallway no liability duty of the school the students in its care taking of the students and the attendant circumstances introduced that Mr no evidence that would tend Morgan would re enter with another student to go to to show the school 8 became angry upon the denial of the that it act requires In this case appellants that the school had any or a its warning student To the employees The fact that Mr 2002 requested pass Kaycee into consideration the age building and stab have foreseen the incident of October 7 Even for conduct that is board contrary the evidence establishes that the school board and not once could Morgan does not make his later actions foreseeable CONCLUSION We find that duty does of the defendant legal causation appeal are en or in the granting of appellees We conclude that while the school does have judgment students no The assessed Thus appellants judgment of the trial to a unforeseeable and not encompass the Morgan motion for summary duty to protect its unprovoked actions have not met their burden of proving court is appellants Kaycee Boudreax All costs of this affirmed and her parents Kevin and Deanna Boudreaux AFFIRMED period We find however that this affidavit does not As such this affidavit does summary dispute the affidavits filed by appellants preclude issue of material fact such that would judgment 17 La 18 Wallmuth 813 App 1 Cir writ Wallmuth 813 2d So not 2d So not create a genuine at 347 348 citing among others Collins considered 334 So 2d 428 La 1976 at 346 7 v Wilson 33 I So 2d 603
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
