Hunter P. Hebert, Individually, and Anderson P. Hebert and Lizette A. Hebert, Individually and as the co-natural tutors of their minor son VS Iberville Parish School Board, Coregis Insurance Company, Devon Dupont and Robert Woolfolk

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED OR PUBLICATION AT OF LC UISIANA CUURT f PPEAI FIIZS1 CIRC T I Tl 2 CA 0177 13 HUNTER P HEBERT INDIVIDUALLY AND ANDERSON P HEBERT AND LIZETTE A HEBERT INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE CO TUTORS OF THEIR MINOR SON NATURAL ERSUS IBERVILLE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD CORGIS 1NSURANCE COMPANY DEVON DUPONT AND ROBERT WOOLFOLK Tudgment t2endered V N 0 1 2013 f r On ppeal from the 18th Judicial Disirict Court In and for the P ox Iberville rish State of Louisiana Tria1 Couri Noo 61983 Honorable Ali in Batiste r Jud Presiding e John W Wilbert Plaquemine LA III Attorney for Plaintiffs Apgeilants Hunter P FIebez et al t Brent N Carriere eys Attor for Defendants Appellees Stacie L DeBlieux Iberville Parish School Board Desiree C Williams Coregi Insurance Company and Lafayette Devon Dupont John W LA Penny Lafayette LA Jr Attorney far the Defendants Appellees Allstate Robert Woolfolk Sr and Tonya Harris a oolfolk BEFORE KUHN HIGGINBOTHAl AND THERIOT JJ 1 HIGGINBOTHAIVI J The trial court granted 5ummary judgrrient in favor of defendants Iberville Parish School Board School Boa Coregis Insurance Company Coregis dj and Devon DuPont Coach I a teach and coach ezn by the uPonY r oyed l School Board and dismissed the pZazntiffs tort suit as to those defer The dents trial court also denied the plaantzffs motion f new trial Tlie plaintiffs Hunter r Hebert and his parents Andersan and Lizette Hebert appeal the trial court s judgments For the following reasons we affirm BACKGROUND During normal schooI hours on January 2y 004 Hunter Hebert was one of several students who were seniors at Plaquemine High School who were assisting Coach DuPont in preparing the baseball field for practice After lunch that day Coach DuPont recruited some of the students and instructed them to wait in the dugout while he took a phone call in the teachers lounge While they were waiting at the field one of the students Robert Woolfolk piciced up a baseball and either threw or hit it toward Hunter unintentionaliy striking Hunter in the face s Hunter facial injuries were so sev that he needed st for lacerations o his re tches nose and lips as ive11 as surgery to stabilize his fractured facial bones According 1 We note that Huntex Hebert is now an ad but at the time of l injury he was under eighteen lt is years of age and considered a minor Additionally on o review of the record we discovered r that the plaintiffs appealed the judgmeni thaY denied th motion for new trial xather than the u summary judgment that dismissed their clainns judgment denyixig a motion fqr new trial is an interlocutory judgment and is normally not appealable However the pi have cleazly aintiffs challenged the original summary udgment or the mexits in their assignments of error and the judgment denying their motion for new trial expressly references the summary judgment ruling that provided for the dismissal oftheir claims wiYh prejudice It is also the established practice of this court as directed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to treat the appeal of the denfal of a motion for new trial as an appeal of the judgment on the merits when it is cleaz from the appellants brief that they intended to appeal the merits of the case See Smith v Hartford Acc Indem Co 2S4 La 341 223 So 826 828 1969 Thomas 2d 829 Comfort Center of Monroe LA Inc 2010 La App lst Cir 10 48 So3d 3228 1233 Thus the 494 29 merits of the summarq udgment of July 20 2012 are properly before us Z Hunter indicated that the ball sVuck nim in the faae after it accidentally went aff track when Robert tlu the ball to another student Robert version was different he indicated that Hunter ew s pitched the ball to him and he hit a line dripe that inadvertently hit Hunter in the face The discrepancy as to how Hunter was actually hit with the ball is not material to the outcome of the suuunary judg issue before nent us 2 to Robert the entire incident was unplaxuned and spontaneous and the students actions had absolutely nothing to do with Coach DuPont absence Nevertheless s Hunter and his parents brought suit against tTne Sch Board Coach DuPont the 00l School Board insurer Coregis collectively referred to as the School Board s defendants and Robert Woolfolk and his arents Hunter and his parents claims against the School Board defendarits were based in negligence more specifically negligent supervision On March 17 2010 the School Board defendants filed a motion for summary judgment maintaining that the plaintiffs could not prove a breach of any duty owed by the School Board and its employee Coach DuPont because the students described the incident as spontaneous and unforeseen and their decision to play with a baseball was not affected by Coach s DuPont absence The plaintiffs opposed the motion arguing that the undisputed lack of Coach DuPont s presence at the time of the incident created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of supervision After a hearing where the deposition testimony of Coach DuPont Hunter and Robert was introduced into evidence the trial court ruled in favar of the School Board defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs claims against those defendants The plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial which the trial court denied on October 22 2012 This appeal followed DISCiJSSION Summary judgment ie subject to de novo review on appeal using the same standards applicable Performance to tfie trial Physical Therapy s court determination of the issues Peak Fitness LLC v Hibernia Corp 2007 2206 La App lst Cir 6 992 Sa2d 527 530 writ denied 2008 La 0 1478 08 3 10 992 So 1018 The law governing stunmary judgments is well settled 2d Louisiana Code ofCivil Procedure articles 966 and 967 set forth the guidelines 3 The record does not reflect the status of the plaintiffs claims against the Woolfolk defendants which are not at issue in this appeal 3 Summary judgznent is appropriate if t pleadings depositions answers to ie interrogatories admissions and affidavits in the record shaw that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law La Code Civ Po art 966 T initial burden is on the mover to B he show that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute See La Code Civ P art 966 If the moving party will not bear the burden of proof at trial on 2 C the subject matter of the motion he need only demonstrate the absence of factual support for one or more essential elements of his opponent claim action or s defense At that point the nonmoving party must produce factual support sufficient to satisfy his evidentiary burden at trial La Code Civ P art 966 2 C If the mover has put forth supporting proof the party opposing summary judgment may not rely upon its pleadings and allegations To the contrary the nonmoving party must affirmatively come forward ivith evidence placing material facts in dispute La Code Civ P art 967 B Most negligence cases are resolved by employing the duty analysis risk which entails five separate elementse 1 whether the defendant had a duty to conform his conduct to a specific standard the duty element 2 whether the s defendant conduct failed to conform to the appropriate standard the breach element 3 whether the defendant substandard conduct was a cause of s fact in the plaintiff injuries the cause element 4 whether the defendant s fact in s substandard conduct was a legal cause of the plaintiffs injuries the scope of liability ar scope of protection element and 5 whether the plaintiff was damaged the damages element Hanlzs v Entergy Corp 2006 La 12 944 477 18106 2d So 564 579 A negative answer to any of the inquiries of the duty analysis risk results in a determination of no liability Id In this case the School Board defendants motion for summary judgment focused upon the absence of factual support for the essential elements of duty breach of duty and cause The fact in 4 threshold issue is whether the ScJhool Board defendanYs owed the plaintiffs a duty which is a question of lau See Id This zssue nzay be resolved by summary e judgment Truelove v Bissic 32 La App 2d Cir 3 7S4 So 377 883 1i00 2d 380 writ denied 2000 La S 62 So d ll09 0950 2Er00 It is well s ttiat a sclioc oard through its agents employees and ttled l teachers is nsible resp for le n nal pervis reasc s over students that is aommensurate with the age of the children and attendant circumstances but it is not obligated to maintain constant surveillance of students in arder to discharge its duty to provide adequate supervisian Sae La Civ Code art 2320 Wallmuth v Rapides Parish School Bd 2001 La 4 13 So 341 346 1779 3IO2 2d Creekbaum v Livingston Parish School Bd 2011 La App lst Cir 1089 11 21 12 80 So3d 771 773 Adams v Caddo Parish School Bd 25 La 370 App 2d Cir 1 631 So 70 73 writ denied 94 La 4 637 94 19 2d 0684 94 29 2d So 466 Before liability can be imposed upon a school board there must be proof of negligence in providing supervision and alsq proof of a causal connection between the lack f superviszon and the accident Adams 631 Sa2d at 73 Furthermore injuries resulting from play or horseplay between discerning students which at some stage may pc ari u risk of harm to the se nreasonable participants does not automatically render a school board liable See Henix v George 465 So 906 910 La App 2d Cir 1985 The risk of injury must be 2d reasonably foreseeable constructively or actually known and preventable if a requisite degree of supervision had been exercisetl Id In this case all of the depositions submitted into evidence reveal that the siudents actions were sudden spontaneous and completely unanticipated Robert testified in his deposition that the stadents were not planning on playing baseball when they went out to the baseball field that day but they were clowning around found some baseballs and decided to play j spur of the moment ust 5 I Robert also testified that he had never been invulved in an inciderit like this before that particular day and there w nothing aL t coac presence or lack of s out e s presence that influenced the stuc decision to play or n play baseball ents t s sition Hunter dep testimony was imiYar irthat he specitically pointed out that the action of playing with the baseball occurred spontaneousl while they were waiting for Coach DuPont to cozne to fhe field Ie aYso indicated t he did not iat have time to react to or comprehend a warning to watch out for the ball as it quickly came toward him There was no evidence presented that playing baseball was expected or foreseen on the day in question Coach DuPont deposition testimony clearly s demonstrated that he told two students Robert and his student aid Mitchell Kelly to proceed to the baseball field to do some work on the field but he instructed the students to wait in the dugout while he took a phone call in the teachers lounge When Coach DuPont went out to the baseball field the students did not tell him about anything that had happened arxd Hur haci already left the area to seek ter medical treatment Coach DuPQnt testified that he had no knowledge of how the incident occurred ar that it had even happened until later fhat evening after school hours Coach DuPont also testified that he did n know th there were any t t baszballs left out on the baseball i that he did not lrnow of anything that would ield have indicated that an accident could have occurred that day and that nothing like this particular incident or problems with those particular students had ever occurred before Additionally Coach Du stated that the students did not give ont I him any indication that they were going to do anything other than sit in the dugout as he had instructed them to da The record before us does not eontain evidence tending to show that Coach DuPont or the School Board had any indication that this unfortunate accident would occur Further there is no dispute of fact concerning the unforeseen 6 spontaneity of the students actzons in cic around and deciding to play wning baseball while waiting for Coach DuP at the baseball field Absent constant mt supervision which is not required under the jurisprudence of this state the spontaneous nature of the students unfor actions could nox have been sezable prevented There is c no is f zr fact that supports a fitidin that a learly ue aterial lack of supervision was a cause of Hurt unforeseeable itijury or that act s in er there was any breach of the duty to reasonably supervise the students in thic case Thus the trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of the Schooi Board s defendants was proper and the trial court dici not err in denying the plaintiffs motion for new trial CONCLITSION Far the stated reasons w affirm the judgznents of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the School Board defendants and denying the plaintiffs motion for new trial All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiffs Hunter Heb and Ihis parents Anderson and Lizette Hebert rt AFFIRMED 4 Because the law does not require constant supezvision ve do n consider the elementar t school faculty handbook offered by the plaintiffs to be sufficient evidence to establish such a daty For the same reason we decline analysis of the relevacicy of the evidence as it pertains to high school faeulty outside of the classroom 5 The basis for the plaintiffs motion for new trial was that the summary judgment was contrary to the law and evidence Our review of the evidence in the record reveals that the suznmazy judgment did not tepresent a miscarriage of jusrice See La Code Civ P art 1972 Burke v z Baton Rouge Metro Airport 97 La App lst Cir 5 712 So 102 031 0947 98 15 2d Accordingly the trial court did not abuse its wide discretion in denying the motion for new trial Burke 712 So at 103 L 2d 7

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.