John Doe and Jane Doe Individually and on behalf of their minor child, Johnny Doe v. ABC School, Joseph Doe and DEF School Board ( 2020 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2019 CA 0983
JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
THEIR MINOR CHILD, JOHNNY DOE
VERSUS
Vjl/I/ ABC SCHOOL, JOSEPH DOE AND DEF SCHOOL BOARD
DATE OFJUDGMENT: SEC 1 7 2Q20
fo'
ON APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY- SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
NUMBER 2008- 12925, DIVISION A, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY
STATE OF LOUISIANA
HONORABLE RAYMOND S. CHILDRESS, JUDGE
Kathleen Ann Manning Counsel for Plaintiff A
- ppellee
Shannon S. Sale Justin Bleker
Richard A. Aguilar
Patrick J. O' Cain
New Orleans, Louisiana
Christopher R. Teske Counsel for Defendant -Appellant
Tara E. Clement St. Tammany Parish School Board
Shannon A. Kelly
Robert I. Siegel
New Orleans, Louisiana
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., McDONALD, HIGGINBOTHAM, THERIOT,
AND CHUTZ, JJ.
7
THERIOT, J.
Defendant -appellant, St. Tammany Parish School Board ( School Board),
appeals the trial court' s judgment, awarding damages in favor of plaintiff a- ppellee,
Justin Bleker,' as the result of the School Board' s independent negligence as well
as for its vicarious liability as an employer. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The undisputed evidence established that during the fall of 2007, while he
was a special education student in the fourth grade, Justin was molested and raped
during school hours in the W.L. Abney Elementary School bathroom by Dino
Schwertz, who was a janitor and, thus, a School Board employee. After another
child made molestation accusations against Schwertz, Justin disclosed his own
sexual abuse to his parents, who then reported the disclosures to the Slidell Police
Department.
On May 30, 2008, this petition for damages was filed. A subsequent
amendment to the petition identified Schwertz and the School Board as
defendants. 2 A preliminary default judgment was entered against Schwertz, who
was incarcerated after having been convicted and sentenced to life plus twenty
years for the sexual assaults of Justin and another child.'
After discovery and motions, the matter proceeded to a five-day trial on the
merits, which commenced on May 21, 2018. The trial court issued written reasons
When this litigation ensued, Justin was a minor and suit was filed by his parents who identified him by the alias
Johnny Doe and themselves as John Doe and Jane Doe, presumably to protect the minor child' s identity. The
petition was subsequently amended and the parents' identities as Terry Victor Bleker, Sr. and Rebecca Lynn
Kennedy Bleker were set forth along with Justin' s. Due to the sensitive nature of the allegations, the trial court
issued an order sealing the record. The order was subsequently vacated, in part, after Justin became of the age of
majority and the nature of the allegations were publicly well known. Also after he reached the age of majority,
Justin was substituted as the proper party plaintiff. Although Terry Bleker and Rebecca Bleker were each awarded
loss of consortium damages, the School Board did not raise any contentions challenging those awards and, therefore,
they remain undisturbed in this appeal. Thus, the sole plaintiff in this appeal is Justin.
2 The petition also named W.L. Abney Elementary School as a defendant. In its answer, the School Board noted that
the elementary school was not a " juridical entity." No additional action has ensued relative to the elementary
school.
3 See State v. Schwertz, 2009- 2183 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 7/ 10), 2010 WL 1838325 ( unpublished), writ denied, 2010-
1315 ( La. 1/ 7/ 11), 52 So. 3d 883.
2
for judgment and, on November 28, 2018, signed a judgment confirming the
default judgment against Schwertz. Additionally, the trial court awarded damages
to Justin against Schwertz and the School Board for his general damages, past
medical expenses, and future medical expenses. The judgment also declared that
the School Board was vicariously liable for Schwertz' s tortious actions. The
School Board appealed.'
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
On appeal, the School Board asserts the following assignments of error:
1) The trial court erred in finding that the School Board is vicariously
liable for Schwertz' s malicious, willful, and deliberate conduct that
was intended to cause bodily harm to Justin Bleker.
2) The trial court erred in failing to address and properly apply the
discretionary function immunity afforded by La. R.S. 9: 2798. 1 to the
Plaintiffs' claims that the School Board is independently liable for the
negligent hiring and supervision of Dino Schwertz.
3) The trial court erred in failing to allocate fault among the allegedly
responsible parties in compliance with La. C. C. art. 2323 and La.
C. C. F. arts. 1917 and 1812( C).
4) The trial court erred in awarding Justin Bleker his past medical
expenses.
5) The trial court' s award for future medical care and mental and
physical pain, anguish, and suffering are erroneous given the evidence
that the Plaintiffs actually introduced in their case in chief against
Schwertz and the School Board.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Factual findings may not be set aside by this court unless we determine there
is no reasonable basis for the findings and the findings are clearly wrong. See
Stobart v. State, Dept of Transp. and Dev , 617 So.2d 880, 882 ( La. 1993). If the
findings are reasonable in light of the record viewed in its entirety, this court may
not reverse even if convinced that had it been the trier of fact, it would have
weighed the evidence differently. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 ( La. 1989).
4 Schwertz did not appeal the judgment against him and, therefore, it remains undisturbed.
3
But where one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-finding process, the
manifest error" or " clearly wrong" standard no longer applies, and if the record is
otherwise complete, an appellate court should make its own independent de novo
review of the record and render a judgment in accordance with a preponderance of
the evidence. Ferrell v Fireman' s Fund Ins. Co., 94- 1252 ( La. 2/ 20/ 95), 650
So. 2d 742, 747.
DISCUSSION
Vicarious Liability
On appeal, in challenging the imposition of liability against it, the School
Board maintains that the trial court erred by finding it vicariously liable for
Schwertz' s conduct. Specifically, the School Board asserts that because Schwertz' s
criminal actions were outside the scope of his employment, it cannot be held liable.
The law in the area of vicarious liability is clear that an employer is liable
for a tort committed by his employee if the employee was acting within the course
and scope of his employment at the time of his commission of the tort. The course
of employment test refers to time and place. The scope of employment test
examines the employment-related risk of injury. Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95- 2270
La. 5/ 21/ 96), 673 So. 2d 994, 996.
According to Louisiana Civil Code article 2320, "[ m] asters and employers
are answerable for the damage occasioned by their servants and overseers, in the
exercise of the functions in which they are employed." In order for an employer to
be vicariously liable for the tortious acts of its employee, the employee' s tortious
conduct must be so closely connected in time, place, and causation to his
employment duties as to be regarded as a risk of harm fairly attributable to the
employer' s business, as compared with conduct motivated by purely personal
considerations entirely extraneous to the employer' s interest. An employer is not
El
vicariously liable merely because his employee commits an intentional tort on the
business premises during working hours. Vicarious liability will attach in such a
case only if the employee is acting within the ambit of his assigned duties and also
in furtherance of his employer' s objective. Baumeister, 673 So. 2d at 996.
In determining whether vicarious liability applies, the court
in Baumeister considered the following factors: ( 1) whether the tortious act was
primarily employment rooted; ( 2) whether the violence was reasonably incidental
to the performance of the employee' s duties; ( 3) whether the act occurred on the
employer' s premises; and ( 4) whether it occurred during the hours of employment.
Baumeister, 673 So. 2d at 996- 97. The jurisprudence provides that a finding of
factors ( 3) and ( 4) without more is insufficient to impose vicarious liability on an
employer. Johnson a Littleton, 45, 323 ( La. App. 2nd Cir. 5/ 19/ 10), 37 So. 3d 542,
547. However, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Baumeister specifically pointed
out that not all four factors must be met before liability may be found. The
particular facts of each case must be analyzed to determine whether the employee' s
tortious conduct was within the course and scope of his employment. Baumeister,
673 So. 2d at 997.
The trial court' s determination that a particular act is within the course and
scope of employment for purposes of vicarious liability is a factual finding
governed by the manifest error rule. The application of this standard of review
mandates that this court can only reverse a lower court' s factual findings when ( 1)
the record reflects that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the finding of
the trial court and ( 2) the record establishes that the finding is clearly wrong.
Baumeister, 673 So. 2d at 998.
Considering the entirety of the record, we find that the trial court was not
clearly wrong in finding that the School Board is vicariously liable for Dino
5
Schwertz' s actions. Schwertz, who was employed by the School Board as a janitor,
had access to children, including Justin, through his employment. More
specifically, one of Schwertz' s duties as a janitor would include cleaning the
school' s bathrooms, and is thus the reason Schwertz would have been allowed
extended access to the bathrooms, which are private areas where children were
likely unsupervised. Per Justin' s description of the assault, Schwertz was in the
bathroom when Justin was exiting one of the stalls, shoved Justin into a stall, and
sexually assaulted him. Therefore, although the sexual assault was certainly not
authorized by the School Board, the opportunity to sexually assault an isolated
child in the school' s bathroom was at least partly actuated by Schwertz' s purpose
of acting for his employer.
Further, in another case involving Schwertz, this court has noted the fourth
circuit' s recognition in Booth v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 2009- 1505 ( La. App.
4th Cir. 9/ 22/ 10), 49 So. 3d 919, that a janitor' s prominent presence on a school' s
campus and the fact that he is an adult make it natural that an elementary -school -
aged child would view him as an authority figure, thus placing children at risk
should a janitor take advantage of this status. See Doe v. St. Tammany Parish
School Bd., 2011- 2344 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 14/ 12), 2012 WL 5506480, at * 5 n. 5.
Although Doe, 2012 WL 5506480, did not address vicarious liability, the fourth
5
circuit did address vicarious liability in Booth, 49 So. 3d at 922. We find that
Schwertz' s status, duties, and presence at the school facilitated his assault on
Justin.
In its written reasons, the trial court wrote:
It is the court' s conclusion that the janitor' s unsupervised proximity to
students, his apparent authority over premises and young students, his
5 In Booth, the fourth circuit considered whether a school board could be vicariously liable for a janitor' s assault of a
child at school, during the janitor' s hours of employment but prior to school starting for the day. The fourth circuit
found that the plaintiff's vicarious liability claims warranted a trial on the merits and should not be dismissed on
summary judgment. Booth, 49 So. 3d at 920- 22.
0
ubiquitous presence in the school bathrooms, the lack of any policy
directing the employee or students in this regard all render this to be
sufficient for the finding of vicarious liability.
The trial court' s reasoning is not manifestly erroneous. The sexual assault took
place on the employer' s premises, during the hours of employment, and was
reasonably incidental to the performance of Schwertz' s employment duties.
Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court manifestly erred or was clearly
wrong in finding Schwertz' s conduct to be sufficiently employment-related so as to
impose vicarious liability on his employer, the School Board. See T.S. v. Rapides
Parish School Bd., 2008- 1359 ( La. App. 3rd Cir. 6/ 3/ 09), 11 So. 3d 628, 632; see
also Samuels v. Southern Baptist Hosp., 594 So. 2d 571, 574 ( La. App. 4th Cir.
1992).
Discretionary Immunity for Independent Liability
On appeal, the School Board does not raise any direct contentions
challenging the trial court' s determination that the School Board was
independently negligent, having breached a duty of reasonable care. Instead, the
School Board urges that it is entitled to discretionary function immunity for its
independent negligence.
Preliminarily, we note that our review of the record supports the conclusion
that the School Board was independently negligent. A different panel of this court
reversed a trial court' s grant of summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by another of
Schwertz' s W.L. Abney Elementary School victims. As in the matter before us,
the School Board was named a defendant and its independent liability was alleged.
See Doe, 2012 WL 5506480, at * 1.
As discussed in Doe, 2012 WL 5506480, at * 4, Louisiana courts have
adopted a duty -risk analysis in determining whether liability exists under the facts
of a particular case. Under this analysis, a plaintiff must prove five separate
7
elements: ( 1)
the defendant had a duty to conform its conduct to a specific standard
of care; ( 2) the defendant failed to conform its conduct to the appropriate standard
of care; ( 3) the defendant' s substandard conduct was a cause -in -fact of the
plaintiffs injuries; ( 4) the defendant' s substandard conduct was a legal cause of the
plaintiffs injuries; and ( 5) actual damages. Whether a duty is owed is a question
of law; whether a defendant has breached a duty owed is a question of fact. S.J. v.
Lafayette Par. Sch. Bd., 2009- 2195 ( La. 7/ 6/ 10), 41 So. 3d 1119, 11.25, citing
Brewer v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., 2009- 1408 ( La. 3/ 16/ 10), 35 So. 3d 230, and
Pinsonneault v Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Co,, 2001- 2217 ( La.
4/ 3/ 02), 816 So.2d 270, 275- 76. Cause -in -fact is generally a " but for" inquiry; if
the plaintiff probably would not have sustained the injuries but for the defendant' s
substandard conduct, such conduct is a cause in fact. See Johnson v State
Through Dep' t of Transp. & Dev., 2017- 0973 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 3/ 19), 275
So. 3d 879,- 899, writ denied, 2019- 00676 ( La. 9/ 6/ 19), 278 So.3d 970. Concluding
outstanding issues of material fact existed as to whether the School Board breached
the duty it owed Schwertz' s victim in that case, the Doe court remanded the matter
to the trier of fact. Doe, 2012 WL 5506480, at * 5.
In this case, the trial court, as the trier of fact, concluded that the School
Board had breached its duty of reasonable care. Although Justin averred numerous
acts and omissions by the School Board constituted negligence in hiring and
supervising Schwertz, for purposes of this appeal we focus on the School Board' s
duty of reasonable care in retaining Schwertz as an employee, which was a duty
owed to students on its W.L. Abney Elementary School campus.
Included in the documentary evidence was a copy of Schwertz' s June 26,
2007 employment application that he signed and dated. In the application,
Schwertz was asked, " Have you ever [ pled] guilty or no contest or been convicted
of a criminal offense ( other than traffic violations)?" Schwertz checked " No." The
application also contained the following statement above the line provided for the
applicant' s signature:
I certify that the information furnished in this application is true
and complete. I understand that furnishing false information or
omitting information on this application could disqualify me from
consideration for employment or could lead to discharge from
employment. You are hereby authorized to investigate my personal
and employment history. [ Emphasis added.]
Thus, the undisputed evidence shows that, in furtherance of its continuing duty to
exercise reasonable care in the retention of employees it hired, the School Board
chose as a method of providing for the security of its students the right to discharge
from employment those who provided false information in their employment
applications.
An examination of the other evidence admitted at trial reveals the following.
Testifying on behalf of the School Board, Assistant Superintendent Peter Jabbia
explained that in 2007, when Schwertz was hired by the School Board, Jabbia was
an associate superintendent with Human Resources ( HR) responsibilities. The
hiring process for a janitor initially included ensuring with the principal of the
school that a vacancy existed. Applications for employment with the School Board
were collected year round and checked for accuracy and completion. With a
vacancy, applications were forwarded to the principal of the school who would
interview a candidate and make a recommendation to HR.
In this case, Jabbia explained that Schwertz' s application was forwarded to
Kathleen Katsorchis, W.L. Abney Elementary School' s principal for the 2007- 08
school year. She set up an interview with Schwertz from which she recalled no
details other than her conclusions that Schwertz had presented himself well and
understood what the job entailed. With no other applicants, Katosorchis
I
recommended Schwertz for the temporary full-time janitor position, which arose
after the elementary school' s regular janitor was absent on workers' compensation
leave.
Schwertz was offered the position by HR. Once he accepted it, he was
required to fill out paperwork, attend orientation, and submit to a background
check. The employment application that Schwertz signed and dated on June 26,
2007, certifying that the information he had provided was true and complete, was
among the paperwork.
Jabbia testified that the results of the background check were received by the
School Board on September 19, 2007, after the commencement of the school year.
He stated that Schwertz was hired prior to the return of the background check,
which was permissible under Louisiana law.6 Upon receipt of the results, Jabbia
reviewed the identified criminal activity and determined that none of the offenses
listed in Schwertz' s background check were among those statutorily proscribed.7
Schwertz' s criminal activity included bank fraud and violation of protective orders.
Jabbia acknowledged that Schwertz was on active probation for the bank fraud
conviction and that he did not contact Schwertz' s probation officer. Jabbia
indicated that after receipt of the criminal activity set forth in the background
check, he visited the clerk of court' s website, which showed two entries for
harassing phone calls, one violation of protective orders, and one issuance of
worthless checks.' Jabbia pointed out that while Schwertz pled guilty to the
violation of protective orders, the other three charges had been nolle prossed.
Prior to its amendment by La. Acts 2018, No. 634, § 1, effective July 1, 2018, La. R. S. 17: 15B stated in relevant
part, " A person who has submitted his fingerprints to the Louisiana Bureau of Criminal Identification and
Information may be temporarily hired pending the report from the bureau as to any convictions of or pleas of nolo
contendere by the person to a crime listed in [ La. R.S. 15: 587. IC] except R.S. 14: 74."
7 See La. R.S. 17: 15A and 15: 587. 1C.
s Because the listed offenses arose in " Covington" and " St. Tammany Parish," ostensibly it was the Twenty -Second
Judicial District Court' s clerk of court website that Jabbia examined.
10
According to Jabbia, during his review of the criminal activity, he was
looking for any red flags that would prevent Schwertz' s from serving as a
temporary janitor and, in his estimation, there were none. Jabbia admitted that he
did nothing, including pulling court records or
checking with local law
enforcement agencies,
to determine the factual bases of any of the offenses,
including Schwertz' s guilty plea for violation of protective orders charges, and he
did not request an explanation from Schwertz. Jabbia admitted that when he
reviewed the results of the background check, he neither pulled Schwertz' s
application to determine whether Schwertz had responded to the inquiry about
criminal activity truthfully nor compared the answer Schwertz had provided to the
background check results. Despite the availability of the information in Schwertz' s
personnel file, Jabbia believed that Schwertz' s untruthful statement about his prior
criminal activity was first discovered subsequent to Schwertz' s arrest in 2008, at
which time Schwertz was asked for an explanation and, having none, advised " it
was best that he moved on." Jabbia explained that had Schwertz not resigned, he
would have been fired because he lied on his application and given the
circumstances related to Schwertz' s arrest for the sexual assaults. Jabbia agreed
that upon discontinuance from active employment, the School Board indicated it
would not rehire Schwertz because he had provided false information on his
employment application.
Mindful that the School Board has not challenged the imposition of
independent liability except to assert entitlement to discretionary immunity, we
conclude that the record supports the conclusion that the School Board is liable for
failing to exercise reasonable care in the retention of Schwertz as an employee
subsequent to the return of the background check. See Smith v. Orkin
Exterminating Co., Inc., 540 So. 2d 363, 366 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 1989) ( an
11
employer had a continuing duty to exercise reasonable care in retention of its
employees where employer was required to send its employees directly into
customers' homes; thus, where employer failed to properly administer its own
chosen method of providing security, i.e., annual polygraph examinations of its
employees, with due care, the employer breached its duty to its customer who was
sexually assaulted by the employee in the customer' s home).'
Insofar as its independent liability, the School Board contends that absent
evidence that it violated either a state statute or regulation, it is immune from the
imposition of liability under the discretionary act statute. Pursuant to La. R.S.
9: 2798. 113 of the discretionary act statute, liability shall not be imposed on public
entities or their officers or employees " based upon the exercise or performance or
the failure to exercise or perform their policymaking or discretionary acts when
such acts are within the course and scope of their lawful powers and duties."
The Louisiana Supreme Court has devised a two- step test to determine
whether a public entity is entitled to immunity under Section 9: 2798. 113. First, if a
statute, regulation, or policy prescribes a particular course of action, there is no
choice or discretion involved, and the immunity does not apply. However, when
discretion is involved, the court must then determine whether that discretion is the
kind that is shielded by the statutory immunity, that is, discretion grounded in
9 Despite its specific factual finding that " the very nature of [Schwertz' s] work ... underscore[ d] the need for a
proper background check andfollow up [ emphasis added]," the trial court' s reasons for judgment do not clearly state
that the School Board' s breach in reasonable care applied to its duty in retaining Schwertz as an employee, although
the trial court clearly found the School Board breached its duty in hiring Schwertz. The undisputed evidence
showed that the School Board offered no explanation for why Schwertz' s employment application was not
compared to the results of the background check, thereby supporting the conclusion of a breach of reasonable care in
the retention of Schwertz as an employee after September 19, 2007. That Schwertz had been hired before the results
of his background check were available, never evaluated relative to the answers he provided in his employment
application, and upon discovery, immediately terminated are findings from the evidence that support the conclusion
of a causal relationship between the School Board' s breach of reasonable care in the retaining of Schwertz as an
employee and Justin' s damages. Additionally, testimony of Jabbia that in 2007 the School Board had a policy of not
hiring anyone convicted of the proscribed offenses despite the availability of a statutory waiver, see La. R.S. 17: 15A
and 15: 587. 1C, is suggestive of a no -tolerance standard by the School Board and lends further support for the
conclusion that retention of Schwertz was a cause -in -fact of Justin' s damages. Moreover, breach of this duty
produced results reasonably associated with the risks against which it was provided to protect, i. e., the identification
of employees of questionable character as evinced by their truthfulness. Therefore, under either a manifest error or
de novo standard of review, there is no error in these factual conclusions.
12
social,
economic or political policy. Section 9: 2798. 1 protects the government
from liability only at the policy making or ministerial level, not at the operational
level. Greene v. Succession ofAlvarado, 2015- 1960 ( La. App. 1 st Cir. 12/ 27/ 16),
210 So. 3d 321, 330, citing Fowler v. Roberts, 556 So. 2d 1, 15 ( La. 1989) ( on
10
rehearing).
Here, the School Board' s policy as set forth in the employment application,
wherein Schwertz was required to certify that he had provided true and complete
information, including his response to whether he had ever pled guilty to or been
convicted of a criminal offense, did not mandate a particular course of action.
Instead, the School Board could disqualify an applicant from consideration for
employment or could cause his or her discharge from employment. Thus, the
policy involved discretion by the School Board. However, it is undisputed that in
this case, School Board representatives did not exercise any discretion whatsoever.
Instead, upon receipt of the return of the background check in which criminal
activity was listed, HR representatives did not compare the answer provided by
Schwertz indicating that he had never pled guilty to or been convicted of a criminal
offense to determine whether he had provided untruthful information in his
application. This failure was particularly concerning where Schwertz was hired
prior to the results of the background check.
The School Board has offered no suggestion, and we have found none,
explaining how the failure of Jabbia, HR representatives, or any other personnel
within the governmental agency to act in conformity with its established policy, as
10 As pointed out by the Greene court, 210 So. 3d at 330 n. 5, in a subsequent plurality opinion, the supreme court
described the analysis of Section 9: 2798. 1 by the Fowler court as " faulty," noting that the statute does not contain
the phrase " grounded in social, economic or political policy," nor does it distinguish between operational acts and
policymaking acts. See Gregor v. Argenot Great Cent. Ins. Co., 2002- 1138 ( La. 5/ 20/ 03), 851 So. 2d 959, 967.
Nevertheless, the Gregor court concluded that the governmental defendant in that case was not immune because the
actionable conduct -- a failure to properly train code enforcement personnel -- was not a decision grounded in social,
economic, or political policy. It was operational negligence in enforcing the sanitary code." Gregor, 851 So.2d at
968. The Gregor court thus based its decision on the same grounds articulated and applied in Fowler and its
progeny. For this reason, we do not construe Gregor as overruling the two-step test set forth in Fowler for the
application of Section 9: 2798. 1.
13
set forth in the employment application, constituted an act of discretion grounded
in social, economic, or political policy. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial
court' s implicit conclusion that the School Board' s independent liability was not at
the policy making or ministerial level but rather at the operational level for which
no immunity applies under Section 9: 2798. 1B.
APPORTIONMENT OF FAULT
Because the trial court concluded that the School Board was vicariously
liable for Schwertz' s criminal actions, it aggregated the fault of Schwertz and the
School Board into a single apportionment. See Kenner Plumbing Supply, Inc. v.
Rusich Detailing, Inc., 2014- 922 ( La. App. 5th Cir. 9/ 23/ 15), 175 So. 3d 479, 502,
writs denied, 2015- 2110, 2015- 2112, 2015- 2115 ( La. 2/ 5/ 16), 186 So. 3d 1164,
1165 ( the principles of comparative fault are not compromised when the trier of
fact aggregates the fault of different persons into a single fault apportionment
against the vicariously liable employer). As stated above, we have concluded that
the trial court was correct in finding the School Board vicariously liable and, thus,
we find no error in the trial court' s aggregation of the fault of Schwertz and the
School Board into a single apportionment.
DAMAGES
The trial court awarded to Justin his past and future medical expenses as
well as general damages. In fashioning its awards, the trial court stated the
following in the written reasons for judgment:
Justin] was a Fourth Grade special education student when he
was molested and raped by the school janitor in the boysl' l bathroom
at [ W.L.] Abney Elementary School during the 2007 to 2008 school
year. After the rape, [ Schwertz] threatened to kill Justin and his family
if Justin told anybody. Justin was at that time already diagnosed with
apraxia of speech, dyslexia, and specific learning disorder, which
impeded his ability to communicate with teachers and students. Only
after other students reported [ having been] assaulted by [ Schwertz]
did Mr. and Mrs. Bleker learn from their son that he had been sexually
14
assaulted. Thereafter, Justin was interviewed by [ a] Child Advocacy
Center Forensic Interviewer ... and later, [ a] Detective .... Justin was
called upon to testify regarding all the details to a jury of twelve men
and women in 2009 when Schwertz was convicted of rape. He has
been treated interviewed by Social Workers, Psychiatrists,
and
Physicians, and experts for the past 10 and 1/ 2 years; they have been
privy to the personal details that would horrify any [ I I -year-old] boy
into complete silence. He was the subject of public discussion and
gossip in his junior high and high school years, he had to change
schools, and he has suffered greatly as a result of the offense.
These findings by the trial court are supported by the evidence and, therefore, not
manifestly erroneous. Therefore, with this backdrop, we examine the School
Board' s contentions relative to each of the awards.
A. Past Medical Expenses
A plaintiff may recover reasonable medical expenses incurred as a result of
an injury. Mack v. Wiley, 2007- 2344 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 2/ 08), 991 So.2d 479,
489, writ denied, 2008- 1181 ( La. 9/ 19/ 08), 992 So. 2d 932. Past medical expenses
are special damages that are capable of a determination with mathematical
certainty. As such, they must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
1. Evidentiary Ruling
The past medical expenses consisted of $20, 762. 50 related to treatment by
Dr. Carolyn Weaver and $ 70, 920. 21 for the past medical treatment of all other
healthcare providers. It is undisputed and the record bears out that after Justin
rested his case -in -chief, the School Board moved for and was granted an
involuntary judgment of dismissal relative to all of Justin' s past medical expenses
besides those of Dr. Weaver since the exhibit containing the bills had not been
placed into evidence." Because judgment against Schwertz was rendered by
default and without him present to object, the trial court permitted Justin to place
11 See La. C. C. P. art. 1672B (" In an action tried by the court without a jury, after the plaintiff has completed the
presentation of his evidence, any party, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not
granted, may move for a dismissal of the action as to him on the ground that upon the facts and law, the plaintiff has
shown no right to relief.").
15
the exhibit with all his medical bills into evidence and awarded $ 70, 920. 21 in other
past medical expenses only against Schwertz in the written judgment. But because
the trial court determined that the School Board was vicariously liable for
Schwertz' s actions, in its written reasons for judgment, it expressly found that the
award of $70, 920.21 in other past medical expenses was " an item of damages
recoverable by [ Justin] against [ the School Board]." Because we affirm the trial
court' s imposition of vicarious liability against the School Board for Schwertz' s
actions, we find that the School Board is liable for the award of $70, 920. 21.
We next address the award of $20, 762. 50 for past medical expenses related
to Dr. Weaver' s treatment. On appeal, the School Board maintains that when it
moved for and was granted the involuntary judgment of dismissal, Dr. Weaver' s
past medical expenses were within the scope of the dismissal. Thus, it contends
that when the trial court permitted Dr. Weaver to include her expenses as part of
her medical records, Justin' s claim to those past medical expenses had already
been dismissed with prejudice, and the trial court erred in allowing them into
evidence.
Louisiana Code of Evidence article 103( A) provides, in part, that " Error may
not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a
substantial right of the parry is affected." The party alleging prejudice by the
evidentiary ruling of the trial court bears the burden of so proving. The trial court
is granted broad discretion in rulings on admissibility of evidence and its
determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that
discretion. Wright v Bennett, 2004- 1944 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 9/ 28/ 05), 924 So. 2d
178, 183.
In admitting the Dr. Weaver' s past medical expenses for Justin, the trial
court stated:
Eel
Since [ Weaver' s] records have been previously offered and
Justin' s attorney] said [ she]
would update them with a complete
copy, and I would agree that the medical billing would in most cases
be considered part of the complete copy, I' ll allow [ Weaver' s] bills
in. 12
After our review of the transcript in this matter, we cannot say the trial court
abused its discretion in admitting Dr. Weaver' s bills as part of the exhibit of Dr.
Weaver' s records.
2. Propriety of Award
The School Board also attacks the trial court' s award of past medical
expenses both as to necessity and quantum. Reasoning that Justin already had pre-
existing conditions that were treated alongside the injuries he sustained after
Schwertz sexually assaulted him and attacking Dr. Weaver' s compliance with
professional and occupational standards for licensed social workers, the School
Board urges that Dr. Weaver over -treated Justin and therefore, ultimately, the
record fails to support a finding that the sexual assaults caused all the conditions
for which Dr. Weaver treated him. Thus, the School Board challenges both medical
causation and quantum, suggesting that Dr. Weaver' s past medical expenses
should be limited to eighteen therapy sessions during the first year after his
disclosure of the sexual assaults.
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving a causal relationship between the
injuries sustained and the tortious conduct that caused the injuries. Proof must be
by a preponderance of the evidence. The test for determining the causal
relationship is whether the plaintiff proved, through medical and lay testimony,
12 The School Board does not dispute that Justin' s attorney agreed to replace the exhibit of Dr. Weaver' s records
with a complete, certified set after the School Board complained about missing information. Instead, it asserts that
the original set of records that was to be replaced did not include Dr. Weaver' s bills, which were part of another
exhibit. But the trial court has great discretion in the manner in which proceedings are conducted before the court,
and it is only upon a showing of a gross abuse of discretion that appellate courts have intervened. Pino v. Gauthier,
633 So.2d 638, 648 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 1993), writs denied, 94- 0243, 94- 0260 ( La. 3/ 18/ 94), 634 So. 2d 858, 859. In
light of this record, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in permitting plaintiff' s attorney the
opportunity to replace the original exhibit with a complete certified set.
17
that it is more probable than not that the subsequent injuries were caused by the
tortious conduct. Schwartzberg v. Guillory, 2016- 0753 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
2/ 17/ 17), 213 So. 3d 1266, 1270.
A defendant in a personal injury case takes the victim as he finds him and is
responsible for all natural and probable consequences of his tortious conduct.
When the tortfeasor' s conduct aggravates a preexisting condition, the tortfeasor
must compensate the victim for the full extent of the aggravation. Id. Nevertheless,
the burden of proof remains with the " eggshell plaintiff." See Schwartzberg, 213
So. 3d at 1270.
Dr. Weaver was allowed, without objection, to testify as an expert in clinical
social work, including work with child sexual abuse victims and clinical work with
families dealing with sexual abuse, as well as
Justin' s primary therapist.
Regarding Justin' s past treatment with Dr. Weaver, the trial court stated:
In the intervening years [ since the sexual assaults], Justin has
been diagnosed with and treated for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
PTSD] by [ Weaver], Ph.D., LCSW. He treated regularly with her
until 2013, and to a lesser extent since then, but he has remained in
treatment. She described his recurring nightmares, involuntary
memories, night terrors,sleepwalking, and flashbacks, especially of
being choked. He was very upset that authorities at the school did not
believe him. He avoids public bathrooms, and he blames himself.
Though these problems have lessened, they occasionally recur during
stressful times....
During this period, Dr. Weaver referred Justin to Dr. Jessica
Hof], a child and adolescent [ p] sychiatrist, for medication
management. Dr. [ Hof] noted the anxiety and prescribed Remeron.
She also noted his decline post assault as reflected in his refusal to
attend school, repeating grades, and poor school performance.
These findings by the trial court are supported by the evidence and are not
manifestly erroneous.
As the trial court found, Dr. Weaver noted that Justin' s preexisting problems
included learning disabilities, severe dyslexia, and apraxia, which she explained
occurred because the muscles in his mouth would not allow him to produce the
words that he wanted to say and made it difficult for others to understand him,
which left him angry due to his inability to express what he wanted to say to
others. Dr. Weaver testified that her training and experience with children, as well
as her history of having worked with Justin since about two months after he
disclosed the sexual abuse, allowed her to compensate for the difficulties that
Justin has with memory retention, speech, and other abstract reasoning issues that
were related to his preexisting conditions.
Although she acknowledged that she did not constantly update her PTSD
diagnosis of Justin in writing, Dr. Weaver testified that she informally evaluated
him with the constant goal of providing therapy designed to help him get a
cohesive understanding of what happened while desensitizing him. According to
Dr. Weaver, during the ten years after the sexual assaults, Justin' s PTSD condition
has changed. She believed as of the day of trial he still had active symptoms. Dr.
Weaver also underscored that the rape of Justin at W.L. Abney Elementary School
affected about every aspect of his life and exacerbated the ordinary stresses of his
life.
A reasonable factual basis exists for the trial court' s conclusion that all of
the therapy for which Dr. Weaver treated Justin was related to his psychological
response to the rape. Accordingly, there is no manifest error and, as such, no basis
to reduce the award to a lesser amount as suggested by the School Board.
B. Future Medical Expenses
The trial court awarded Justin $ 20, 000. 00 in future medical expenses. 13 The
School Board claims a lack of evidence to support a finding that the future medical
13 The trial court' s judgment expressly awarded medical expenses pursuant to La. R.S. 13: 5106B( 3), which requires
the placement of future medical expenses into a reversionary trust and the direct payment to the provider of medical
care and related benefits as incurred. Additionally, funds remaining in the trust statutorily revert to the political
entity that established the trust upon the death of the claimant or upon the termination of the trust.
M
care is both inevitable and medically necessary and, therefore, warranted in light of
the evidence presented at trial.
To recover future medical expenses a plaintiff must prove those expenses
more probably than not will be incurred. A plaintiff shows the probability of future
medical expenses with supporting medical testimony and an estimation of their
probable cost. The proper standard for determining whether a plaintiff is entitled
to future medical expenses is proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the
future medical expense will be medically necessary. It is well acknowledged that
an award for future medical expenses is in great measure highly speculative and
not susceptible to calculation with mathematical certainty. Such awards " generally
do not involve determining the amounts, but turn on question of credibility and
inferences, i.e., whose experts and other witnesses does the [ trier of fact] believe?"
Giavotella v. Mitchell, 2019- 0100 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 10/ 24/ 19), 289 So. 3d 1058,
1074- 75, writ denied, ( La. 1/ 22/ 20), 291 So. 3d 1044. Much discretion is left to the
judge or jury in its assessment of quantum of future medical damages. See
Giavotella, 289 So. 3d at 1075.
Dr. Weaver testified that in her opinion, since Justin had reached 22 years of
age, he was stronger and psychologically ready to deal with the suppression of
emotion that he has about the sexual violation. Because of this, Dr. Weaver
suggested that he undergo intensive treatment to specifically pinpoint the aspects
of PTSD that have not been emotionally neutralized. Noting that Justin was more
mature and requesting neutralization of the lingering issues associated with the
rape, Dr. Weaver testified that therapy sessions more than once a week over three
years would address Justin' s ongoing problems. At the time of trial, Dr. Weaver
stated that one- hour sessions were $ 150. 00 each. An award of $20,000. 00 at the
rate of $ 150/ hour yields a little more than two and one- half years of one- hour
20
sessions once/week. 14 Thus, a reasonable factual basis exists to support the trial
court' s award for future medical expenses. Therefore, the award was neither
manifestly erroneous nor an abuse of discretion.
C. General Damages
General damages are defined as those which may not be fixed with
pecuniary exactitude; instead, they involve mental or physical pain or suffering,
inconvenience, the loss of intellectual gratification or physical enjoyment, or other
losses of life or lifestyle which cannot be definitely measured in monetary terms.
Pinn v. Pennison, 2016- 0614 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 12/ 22/ 16), 209 So. 3d 844, 849.
The trier of fact is accorded much discretion in fixing general damage awards. See
La. C. C. art. 2324. 1; Pennison v. Carrol, 2014- 1098 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 4/ 24/ 15),
167 So. 3d 1065, 1077, writ denied sub nom. Pennison v. Henry, 2015- 1214 ( La.
9/ 25/ 15), 178 So. 3d 568. The discretion vested in the trier of fact is " great," even
vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.
Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So. 2d 1257, 1261 ( La. 1993), cert. denied,
510 U.S. 1114, 114 S. Ct. 1059, 127 L.Ed.2d 379 ( 1994).
The role of an appellate court in reviewing general damages is not to decide
what it considers to be an appropriate award but rather to review the exercise of
discretion by the trier of fact. Wainwright v. Fontenot, 2000- 0492 ( La. 10/ 17/ 00),
774 So. 2d 70, 74. Before an appellate court can disturb the quantum of an award,
the record must clearly reveal that the trier of fact abused its discretion. In order to
make this determination, the reviewing court looks first to the individual
circumstances of the injured plaintiff. Theriot v. Allstate Ins. Co., 625 So. 2d 1337,
1340 ( La. 1993). Reasonable persons frequently disagree about the measure of
general damages in a particular case. Youn, 623 So. 2d at 1261. It is only when the
14 We note that $ 20, 000.00 - $ 150. 00 = 133. 33 hours of therapy. Over the course of a 52- week calendar year, it
amounts to 2. 564 years of therapy at the rate of once per week.
21
award is, in either direction, beyond that which a reasonable trier of fact could
assess for the effects of the particular injury to the particular plaintiff under the
particular circumstances that the appellate court should modify the award. Id.
In reviewing an attack on a general damage award, a court does not review a
particular item in isolation; rather, the entire damage award is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion, and if the total general damage award is not abusively high, it
may not be disturbed. Pennison, 167 So. 3d at 1078.
Justin' s general damages as articulated by the trial court were for his
mental and physical pain, anguish, and suffering." The School Board asserts the
total award of $350, 000. 00 for the molestation and rape of eleven -year- old Justin
by the school' s janitor in the school' s bathroom during the school day was
excessive and, therefore, an abuse of discretion. Citing other cases involving
sexual assaults of students, the School Board suggests that " a reasonable award for
general damages in this case would be at most $ 20, 000[. 00]."
The rape of Justin forever changed his life. Justin explained that although
there were three instances of sexual abuse, over the years it turned into " one big
incident." He recalled having been choked by the school janitor, having the school
janitor throw something at him, and having been told by the school janitor to be
quiet and that he was going to kill Justin. Justin explained the school janitor
yanking off his clothes and raping him were the main parts that have stuck in his
head all these years and that he does not think about the small details. Justin
described the time of the rape, saying:
I remember being in the bathroom using the bathroom. I come
out of the stall and he' s in the restroom. The door is closed. And he' s
walking toward me.
I' m not thinking anything of it, because I figured he' s coming
in here to clean. He' s a janitor. And the next thing is he' s shoving me
into ... the stall ... the handicapped stall in the fourth grade hallway.
22
After the incidents, Justin said that he was scared. He did not tell the teacher
or his parents because he was scared what the school janitor might do to him since
the janitor had threatened him. He worried that the school janitor might kill him.
Justin started using a different bathroom and stopped going to his homeroom,
which was in the hallway where the bathroom in which he was raped was located.
On March 10, 2008, W.L. Abney Elementary School personnel sent a letter
home with students, informing parents about " allegations involving a former
School [ Board] employee" that involved two students, noting the school took the
matter " very seriously," and was working closely " with law enforcement in
investigating the complex allegations of wrongdoing." After having someone read
the letter to him, Justin tried to hide it from his parents because he knew it was the
school janitor. Justin was afraid the school janitor would try to hurt him. When a
news story reported the details of the school janitor' s arrest, including broadcast of
Schwertz' s photograph while the family ate dinner, Justin' s face turned white.
Justin was afraid that if he said anything he would be hurt. But his parents knew
something was not right. Justin agreed to talk to his father after his father sent his
mother and sister to a neighbor' s house. Justin then told his father what had
happened to him at school. Thereafter, his parents took Justin to the police.
Justin finished out the 2007- 08 school year in a home- school program. He
was unsuccessful in returning to public school during his elementary years. He
recalled the one time that he attempted to go to a public elementary school as
having started out well, but when he found a janitor cleaning in the bathroom, he
became upset, frustrated, aggravated, and scared. He returned to public school
during his junior high and high school years, but was held back in 8th grade and
unable to graduate from high school due to insufficient credits after he needed to
repeat 11th grade.
23
Because of the sexual assaults, Justin felt as though he has been shunned by
former W.L. Abney Elementary personnel. It took him many years to be able to
ride in a car or drive past the school. Justin testified that he pursued the lawsuit
against the School Board because he does not want this to happen to another
student. He hoped the School Board would fix its mistakes and be more careful in
who it chooses to hire.
Additionally, the record shows that the toll on Justin' s health has been
pervasive. As we have already noted, he has undergone over ten years of therapy
and seen numerous doctors, including for exacerbation of severe gastrointestinal
GI) tract issues. Continued problems with sleepwalking, night terrors, and GI
tract accommodations have profoundly impacted his ability to perform at work.
Indeed, he is able to work primarily because his father provided a job and makes
allowances to address Justin' s psychological and physiological needs.
The trial court did not abuse its vast discretion in awarding $ 350, 000. 00 in
general damages to Justin. Accordingly, that portion of the judgment is affirmed.
DECREE
We affirm the trial court' s judgment awarding damages in favor of plaintiff -
appellee, Justin Bleker, as the result of the School Board' s independent negligence
as well as for its vicarious liability as an employer. Appeal costs are assessed to
the St. Tammany Parish School Board in the amount of $12, 372. 89.
AFFIRMED.
24
FIRST CIRCUIT
I A
M6,
FM 110 11 MI ININ 141111 N 191AIN tiAl NO. 2019 CA 0983
CHUTZ, J., agreeing in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority' s affirmance of the trial court' s finding that St.
Tammany Parish School Board ( School Board) was independently liable when it
continued to employ Dino Schwertz as ajanitor after the return ofthe School Board' s
background check revealed that Schwertz had lied on his employment application.
Likewise, I take no issue with either the denial of discretionary immunity to the
School Board for its independent liability or the amount of damages that the trial
court awarded. But based on my review of the evidence before us relative to the four
factors identified by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Baumeister v. Plunkett, 95-
2270 ( La. 5/ 21/ 96), 673 So. 2d 994, 997, 1 believe on review we are constrained to
conclude that the School Board is not vicariously liable for Schwertz' s criminal
actions.
The trial court found that Justin Bleker was sexually assaulted by Schwertz in
the school bathroom during school hours. And on appeal, the School Board does not
dispute that either Schwertz' s sexual assault of Justin, having occurred in the school
bathroom, was on the School Board' s premises or that the criminal conduct occurred
during Schwertz' s hours of employment since it was at a time when Justin was
attending school. Thus, two of the four Baumeister factors are established by the
evidence. But the record is devoid of any evidence to support the other two factors,
i.e., findings either that Schwertz' s sexual assault of Justin was primarily
employment rooted or that it was reasonably incidental to the performance of his
duties as a janitor of the school. See Baumeister, 673 So. 2d at 999 ( the likelihood
that a nursing supervisor will find an employee alone in the nurses' lounge and
sexually assault her is not a risk fairly attributable to the performance of the
supervisor' s duties; a nursing supervisor' s responsibilities do not include sexually
oriented physical contact with a co -employee). See also Honor v. Tangipahoa Par.
Sch. Bd., 2013- 0298 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 11/ 1113), 136 So.3d 31, 33- 36, writ denied,
2014- 0008 ( La. 2/ 28/ 14), 134 So. 3d 1181 ( where defendant, another employee
custodian, employed at the same school as plaintiff employee custodian touched
plaintiffs custodial cart and, in response to questioning by plaintiff, engaged in
criminal conduct when he threw her against a wall and punched her in the face,
defendant custodian was not within the ambit of his assigned duties or in furtherance
of his employer' s objective). Cf. Latullas v. State, 94- 2049 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
6/ 23/ 95), 658 So. 2d 800, 803- 05 ( employer State was vicariously liable for the rape
of a prisoner on prison grounds by its employee prison guard while the guard was in
charge of the prisoner' s work crew, where the guard told the inmate to accompany
him to perform work in an isolated area and raped the prisoner since the rape
occurred while the guard was performing his duties and the guard' s job duties
actually permitted him to commit the rape),
Simply stated, the likelihood that a janitor will sexually assault a student in
the bathroom is not a risk fairly attributable to the performance ofthe janitor' s duties.
Clearly, a school janitor' s responsibilities do not include any sexual activity and, in
particular, the sexual assault of a student during the school day and on the school
premises. As such, I believe that the trial court erred in concluding the School Board
was vicariously liable for Schwertz' s conduct and aggregating Schwertz' s fault with
that of the School Board into a single apportionment.
PA
The School Board' s liability is founded on its failure to exercise reasonable
care in retaining Schwertz as an employee which it breached When it ignored its own
policy of evaluating the truthfulness of his representations on the employment
application. This dereliction of evaluation is particularly troubling in this case since
Schwertz' s background check identified criminal activity, including a conviction for
which he was on active probation and a guilty plea for a violation of protective orders
for which the factual basis was not disclosed. As a result of the failure,, the School
Board missed the chance to remove Schwertz from the elementary school campus
and thereby avoid the commission of the sexual assaults of a student. While
Schwertz' s conduct of sexually molesting and raping Justin is beyond reprehensible,
the School Board' s omission permitted an opportunity for the criminal conduct to
occur. Under these circumstances, I would apportion 50% fault to the School Board
and 50% to Schwertz.
Accordingly, I dissent in part.
K