Blowe v. Roberts

899 S.E.2d 439

BLOWE

v.ROBERTS et al.; and vice versa.

A23A1470

A23A1471

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 7, 2024

Reconsideration Denied March 26, 2024

Sun S. Choy, Jacob Edward Daly, Atlanta, for Appellant in A23A1470.

Dianna J. Lee, Atlanta, Larry Christopher Stewart, Maxwell Kent Thelen, Michael Turner Roth, Seth Aaron Lowry, for Appellee in A23A1470.

Dianna J. Lee, Atlanta, Larry Christopher Stewart, Maxwell Kent Thelen, Michael Turner Roth, Seth Aaron Lowry, for Appellant in A23A1471.

Sun S. Choy, Jacob Edward Daly, Atlanta, for Appellee in A23A1471.

Doyle, Presiding Judge.

After high school student Malachi McFadden was burned during a chemistry class experiment conducted by teacher Bridgette Blowe, McFadden’s next friend, Shantiqua Roberts filed suit against Blowe and others, alleging that Blowe’s negligence resulted in McFadden’s injuries.¹ Blowe moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on the ground that she was protected by official immunity.² The trial court denied the motion in part, finding that Blowe had a ministerial duty that she negligently performed in relation to McFadden’s injuries.³

In Case No. A23A1470, Blowe appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by denying in part her motion to dismiss and granting in part Roberts’s motion for partial summary judgment by holding as a matter of law that Blowe negligently performed a ministerial act. In Case No. A23A1471, Roberts cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by partially granting Blowe’s motion to dismiss and denying in part her motion for partial summary judgment with regard to her argument that various county ordinances, national safety codes, and other standards created ministerial duties that Blowe negligently performed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

[1] On appeal from the determination of a motion for summary judgment, this Court reviews the evidence and any questions of law de novo in order to determine whether "there is a genuine issue of material fact."⁴ "We review the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss de novo."⁵

The record shows that August 5, 2019, was the first day of school at a DeKalb County public high school where Blowe was teaching a chemistry course that McFadden was assigned to for his first period. Per her lesson plan, Blowe had planned to conduct a science demonstration while the students watched. The demonstration consisted of Blowe lighting a piece of currency on fire after soaking the currency in a solution of isopropyl alcohol or ethanol and water. The solution resulted in an illusion in which the currency appeared to be on fire but was prevented from actually burning. Although Blowe had conducted the demonstration many times prior to her first period class that day, she was unable to light the currency, which she had soaked in an alcohol and water solution. Prior to her second period class rotating to her, Blowe resoaked the currency in a new solution of ethanol and water. Blowe’s demonstration was successful, and she decided to repeat the demonstration for her first-period students the next day — August 6.

The next day, the first-period students gathered around Blowe’s table with McFadden seated at an adjacent table close by. Blowe performed the demonstration successfully, but many of the students requested to see it a second time. Blowe agreed, and after dousing the flames, she placed the currency into a bowl that contained the solution of water and ethanol in preparation for another attempt before walking over to turn off the lights in order for the students in the back of the class to be able to have a better view of the second demonstration.

Unfortunately, Blowe had not completely extinguished the flames, and the currency reignited in the bowl. When some of the students yelled for Blowe, she hurried back to the table, directing the students to move away. McFadden, however, remained seated where he was at the adjacent table. Blowe grabbed a beaker filled with what she thought was water and poured it on the bowl to extinguish the fire; however, the beaker contained ethanol, and pouring it on the flames caused the bowl to break and the flames to spread across the table. The flames jetted upward about four feet and across the room about six to seven feet, reaching the adjacent table and McFadden, who sustained burns to his arms, face, neck, and back. A substitute teacher and paraprofessional in the class along with Blowe attempted to assist McFadden, and after hearing calls over the school radio, the maintenance manager came into the class with a fire extinguisher and doused the flames. DeKalb County schools performed an investigation of the incident, concluding that Blowe violated Standard Nine of the DeKalb County Policy of Professional Ethics because she failed to properly label the beakers used in the demonstration.⁶

Roberts filed the instant case alleging that Blowe was liable for causing McFadden’s injuries because she negligently failed to perform certain ministerial arts, namely: (1) Standards 1 and 9 of the DeKalb Board Policy GBU: Professional Personnel Ethics ("DeKalb Standards"); (2) professional safety standards adopted by the school district and provided to [the school] teachers; (3) applicable law and fire code provisions from National Fire Prevention Act ("NFPA") 45 (2011) and International Fire Code ("IFC") (2012) as adopted by local ordinance and state statute; (4) the Flinn Scientific Student Safety Contract ("Flinn Contract"); and (5) the manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheet ("MSDS") for ethanol.

In her third amended complaint, Roberts specifically alleged that Blowe

violated the ministerial duties imposed by safety rules, policies and procedures of the Flinn Scientific Student Safety Contract, including but not limited to the following: (1) failing to know the locations and operating procedures for all safety equipment including fire extinguisher and fire blanket; (2) failing to read the label on the beaker of ethanol to verify its contents before pouring it onto an open flame; (3) dispensing a flammable liquid directly onto an open flame; (4) using chemicals, heat, and glassware in the classroom while students were not wearing laboratory glasses; and (5) failing to handle ethanol over a pan to contain spills.

Blowe deposed that although she was familiar with Flinn, which is a company that makes science teaching materials, and the National Science Teachers Association ("NSTA"), she was not aware that any of the guidelines or rules that were crafted by those groups had been adopted by her high school or by DeKalb County schools as requirements for the science teachers to follow when conducting chemistry class or demonstrations therein. Blowe was not familiar with the NFPA or IFC. She deposed that when she initially started teaching at the high school, the science teachers decided to use Flinn’s materials in their classes, but she did not know whether the other teachers actually used Flinn materials or not. Blowe deposed that she had not given her students a copy of the Flinn Contract when she did the demonstration because they were not participating in the demonstration, but she was following the rules contained therein when she performed the experiment.

There was no fire blanket located in Blowe’s classroom, nor was there a fire extinguisher, but Blowe knew that a blanket was in another classroom and a fire extinguisher was outside in the hall. The head of the science department deposed that each science teacher used their discretion to decide which safety rules to use in their classroom as long as they have some safety contract for students. She also deposed that even if a student had not completed a safety contract they could watch a demonstration, and she did not point to any procedure or requirement that the Flinn Contract be distributed to students before any demonstration. The individual teachers chose their own demonstrations, and there was no approval process at the school or county level. The department head also deposed that teachers normally do not use fume hoods for ethanol because it does not have a strong odor.⁷

As far as the use of goggles, the department head deposed that everyone should wear them during experiments, but students normally did not wear them during demonstrations. She also deposed that she had never discussed county ordinances in terms of fire safety, the NFPA, or the IFC, and teachers normally use guidelines like those produced by Flinn, NSTA, or from the school district. As for labeling materials and keeping additional materials at the desk during a demonstration, she deposed that it would be at the discretion of the teacher — what they are comfortable with and what their plans were for the demonstration. She deposed that there are no mandatory safety rules to follow during a demonstration other than the steps included with the particular demonstration; and with regard to safety, she never heard the word "mandatory" or "must" being used by the district.

The substitute teacher who was in the room on the day of the incident deposed that he was unaware of any training that DeKalb County schools did for classroom safety or chemistry classroom safety. His outside training courses for certification as a science teacher had not included any safety training at that point in time. He substituted in Blowe’s classroom after the incident and passed out student safety contracts to the students, but he, as substitute teacher, did not receive any additional safety training; the contracts were for the students to read, to sign, and to have their parents sign, and the students were tested on their content thereafter.

Blowe moved to dismiss the claims against her on the basis that she was protected by official immunity, and in response, Roberts moved for summary judgment, arguing that Blowe had violated several ministerial duties causing McFadden’s injuries.

[2–8] After a hearing on the issue of official immunity,...