|
No. 132154
| Larry Reaume, as Next Friend of Matthew |
|
Diane L. Aimar-Saylor |
| Patrick Reaume, a Minor, |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Monroe - Costello, J.) |
|
|
| Jefferson Middle School, |
|
|
Defendant, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Ryan Nadeau, |
|
Timothy J. Mullins |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Background
According to the complaint in this case, fourteen-year-old Matthew Reaume was at wrestling practice at his middle school, waiting for the coaches to arrive, when assistant coach Ryan Nadeau entered the gym from behind him. Nadeau wrapped his arms around Reaume’s chest and took him to the mat. Nadeau then performed a full body roll. When this roll was complete, Reaume extended his arm out in an effort to get up or escape the coach’s hold. At this moment, Nadeau commenced a second body roll, and this caused Reaume’s elbow to fracture. The injury was serious, requiring surgery, and was complicated by subsequent infection. Reaume’s father sued both the coach and the school. Both defendants moved to dismiss the case, raising the defense of governmental immunity. Although the circuit judge granted summary disposition to the school on that basis, the judge refused to do the same for Nadeau. The trial judge found there was a question of fact as to whether Nadeau’s actions amounted to gross negligence, which would remove the governmental immunity defense. “Gross negligence” is defined by statute as “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results,” MCL 691.1407(7)(a). Nadeau challenged the trial court’s ruling at the Court of Appeals, arguing that he was merely demonstrating a wrestling move to Reaume, but the appeals court rejected this argument in an unpublished per curiam opinion. The Court of Appeals concluded that, without notice of what Nadeau was doing, Reaume would have been unprepared to respond. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court in an unpublished opinion, concluding that reasonable minds could differ with regard to whether an injury prompted by Nadeau’s failure to announce his intentions to an unprepared student constituted gross negligence. Nadeau appeals.
Top of Page
|
