BRIEFING THE CASE WRITING ASSIGNMENT

CHAPTER 25

BY

District of Columbia v. Howell

607 A.2d 501 (D.C. App. 1992)

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Strayer University

Online Campus

Memphis, TN

December 3, 2009

1. Case Name, Citation, and Court

District of Columbia v. Howell

607 A.2d 501 (D.C. App. 1992)

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

2. Key Facts

A. The Murch School Summer Discovery Program was designed to provide hands-on education for

gifted and talented eight and nine year old children. (Cheeseman, 2009).

B. The program was started in 1985 when the Murch school principal, Ms. Gill, attended a reception at

Mt. Vernon College given by Greg Butta, a Ph.D. candidate at the American University, to

publicize the success of a summer program he conducted at Mount Vernon (Cheeseman, 2009).

C. After expressing interest in the program and several discussions, Mr. Butta submitted a formal

proposal to Ms. Gill to conduct a similar program at the Murch School (Cheeseman, 2009).

D. Gill made changes to the proposal, then solicited and received approval for the program

from the Assistant Superintendent for the District of Columbia Public Schools

(Cheeseman, 2009).

E. Brochures for the program drawn up by Butta were sent home with the Murch School

pupils and mailed out, under school letterhead, to parents whose children attended other

District schools (District of Columbia v. Howell, 1992).

F. Butta hired the staff for the summer program, including some of the instructors who had

taught in the Mount Vernon program. Mrs. Gill, however, reviewed all of the instructors'

resumes, had veto authority over their hiring, and interviewed most of the staff, including

A. Louis Jagoe, before the hiring was made final (Cheeseman, 2009).

G. Jagoe held a Master’s degree in chemistry and a Ph.D. candidate at The American University and

was hired to teach chemistry to the eight and nine year olds at Murch Schoo (Cheeseman, 2009).

H. Before the first general staff meeting, he told Butta that as part of the class he would do a

luminescence experiment and a "cold-pack" experiment, and wanted to make sparklers

with the children. Jagoe and Butta discussed the safety of the sparkler experiment only in

regards to the location where the children would be allowed to light the sparklers

(Cheeseman, 2009).

I. On 08/01/1985, a staff meeting was conducted in which Gill, Butta, and all the instructors

and counselors were present. Each instructor briefly explained what they intended to do

with their class. Jorge explained to the group, which several instructors verified and

testified, that he planned to make sparklers as one of the chemistry experiments conducted

in his class. Gill, who was in and out of the meeting, stated she did not recall hearing

Jogoe discuss this experiment. However, notes taken by Gill at the meeting revealed that

she heard him discuss the luminescence and cold pack experiments and asked him

questions concerning both. Gill spoke and emphasized the “hands on” nature of the

experiment and her hopes for its success (Cheeseman, 2009).

J. Dedrick Howell was enrolled in the program after his parents received the school’s

brochure in the mail. The accident occurred on 08/12/1985. At the beginning of the class,

Jogoe passed out the “recipe” for the experiment to the children and also wrote it on the

blackboard. The experiment called for the use of potassium perchlorate, a highly unstable

and volatile chemical. Commercially made sparklers are not made with potassium

perchlorate (Cheeseman, 2009).

K. While the students were combining the chemicals, Jagoe ignited three chemicals in the

front of the classroom with a butane lighter. Butta was present for one of the ignitions

when he dropped off the hangers for use in the experiment. Mrs. Gill also entered the

classroom and observed the students working at the tables wearing goggles or glasses. She

was also present when Jagoe light the chemicals with a fire extinguisher on the table beside

him (Cheeseman, 2009).

L. The children continued to mix the chemicals while a counselor, Rebecca Seashore, passed

out pieces of metal hangers to be dipped into the mixture at a later time. Dedrick Howell

was specifically told not to dip the hanger into the mixture until instructed to do so.

Moments later, the chemicals exploded in front of Dedrick. (Cheeseman, 2009).

M. The chemicals burned at 5000(F. Dedrick was burned over 25% of his body, including his

hands, arms, chest, and face (Cheeseman, 2009).

3. Issue

Is an employer liable for the actions of its independent contractors?

4. Holding

Only under special circumstances

5. Court’s Reasoning

The Court held that:

A. The jury found the District of Columbia liable on alternative theories of negligence, recording its findings on a special verdict form. If the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict on any one of these theories, then the denial of the motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict was proper. Cf. Nimetz v. Cappadona, 596 A.2d 603, 606-08 (D.C. 1991). The jury concluded that there was ample evidence from which the jury could find Jagoe to be an independent contractor performing inherently dangerous work for the District of Columbia, thus making the District liable for his negligence (District of Columbia v. Howell, 1992). B. Judgment AFFIRMED (Cheeseman, 2009).

QUESTIONS

1) Was A. Louis Jagoe hired by the District of Columbia as an employee or an independent contractor? A. Louis Jagoe was hired by the District of Columbia as an independent contractor.

2) Describe the accident that occurred. Who was injured? At the beginning of the class, Jogoe passed out the “recipe” for the experiment to the

children and also wrote it on the blackboard. The experiment called for the use of

potassium perchlorate, a highly unstable and volatile chemical. While the students were

combining the chemicals, Jagoe ignited three chemicals in the front of the classroom with a

butane lighter. Rebecca Seashore, a counselor, passed out pieces of metal hangers to be

dipped into the mixture at a later time. Dedrick Howell was specifically told not to dip the

hanger into the mixture until instructed to do so. Moments later, the chemicals exploded in

front of Dedrick.The chemicals burned at 5000(F. Dedrick Howell was injured in an

accident when the chemicals he was mixing in a chemistry experiment exploded. Dedrick

was burned over 25% of his body, including his arms, face, hands, and chest (Cheeseman,

2009).

3) Normally, an employer is not liable for the tortuous conduct of its independent contractors. Are there any exceptions to this rule? If so, describe. An employer generally is not liable the conduct of its independent contractors to third parties. However, exceptions do apply to this rule. One such exception to this rule is when an employer hires an independent contractor to do work involving a special danger to others that the employer knows about or has reason to know to be inherent in or normal to the work. In a case such as this, the employer is subject to liability for any physical harm caused to a third party if the contractor fails to take reasonable precautions against such danger (Cheeseman, 2009). 4) What damages were awarded to the plaintiff?? The jury awarded Dedrick eight million dollars individually for pain and suffering. One million dollars to his parents for past and future medical expenses, and one million dollars to his parents individually for loss of parent-child consortium (District of Columbia v. Howell, 1992). REFERENCES

Chessman, H. (2009). Contemporary business and online commercial law, 6th ed. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.