## Facts

- Ronald T. Butler, a seventh-grade student at a District of Columbia junior high school, was injured as he entered his printing classroom after lunch.
- A classmate warned Butler that boys inside intended to scare him when he entered.
- Within a few steps into the room, a pointed, sharp object struck Butler’s left eye, causing permanent loss of sight in that eye.
- The printing classroom used small metallic type; pieces of type were observed on the floor near where Butler fell.
- The regular printing teacher was not present at the start of class because the principal had assigned him to cafeteria supervision during lunch; he arrived less than ten minutes after the injury.
- Plaintiffs alleged negligent supervision and negligent allocation of teachers, asserting school officials knew students would engage in horseplay and throw objects if the class was left without the teacher.
- The object that struck Butler was not identified by medical testimony, and no witness definitively established what was thrown or by whom.
- At trial, the district court directed a verdict for the District, citing (1) governmental immunity for discretionary staffing decisions and, alternatively, (2) insufficient evidence that teacher allocation was negligent.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that the District negligently supervised the class or negligently allocated teachers, causing Butler’s injury.
2. Whether, if negligence were otherwise shown, governmental immunity barred claims based on allegedly discretionary school staffing decisions.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the directed verdict for the District.
- The court affirmed solely on the alternative ground that plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of negligence for submission to the jury.
- The court did not reach the governmental-immunity question.
- The court rejected reliance on new or undeveloped appellate theories (e.g., failure to secure metal type; allowing students into the room without a teacher) as inadequate to cure the evidentiary deficiencies.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict is proper where, viewing the evidence most favorably to the plaintiff, reasonable jurors could not reasonably find negligence on the record presented.
- Negligence claims require proof from which a jury can find both breach of a standard of care and a non-speculative causal connection between the alleged breach and the injury.
- Appellate courts may affirm on any ground supported by the record, including insufficiency of evidence, without deciding alternative legal defenses such as governmental immunity.
- Arguments not clearly developed at trial, or not supported by record evidence establishing breach and causation, generally cannot supply a basis to reverse a directed verdict.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judgment for the District because the plaintiffs’ evidence did not permit a reasonable jury to find that the school’s staffing/supervision decisions were negligent or that those decisions, rather than an unidentified act by students, caused the injury; the court therefore affirmed without deciding whether governmental immunity applied.


Butler v. District of Columbia, 417 F.2d 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1969)