Negligent Behavior
This court case found that a teacher was liable for not practicing reasonable care (the degree of care a teacher of ordinary prudence would have used under like circumstances) when she took a group of twenty girls to watch some eighth-grade boys play baseball at a sporting arena. She left the girls there for some time and during that time, the boys had started throwing pebbles at the girls. While the teacher was gone a young girl named Margaret was hit in the eye with a pebble and the parents sued for damages on her behalf. The court ruled in favor of the parents, stating that the children needed supervision, and that the teacher was indeed being negligent.
What is Sheehan v. St. Peter's Catholic School Bd., 188 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 1971)?
This court case in 1991 stated that the teacher in question, a gym teacher, was not liable for the injuries done to a young man during a wrestling match in a physical education class. The court stated that the Defendant (the teacher) had given the appropriate amount of instruction when it came to the rules of wrestling, demonstrating the maneuvers, and matching people by height, weight, and size. The teacher in this case was not liable.
What is Toller v. Plainsfield School District #202, 582 N.W.2d 237 (Ill.App. 1991)?
This court case brought allegations against the Age Discrimination and Employment Act by the Board of Education in Baltimore County. An older woman was trying to find a job as a teacher that she was qualified for when she discovered that younger teachers were being hired to fill vacant slots that she was more than qualified for and sued for compensatory damages based on the damages to her not being able to find a job. The Board tried to use governmental immunity (meaning that they could not be sued as an entity of the state), stating that under the Eleventh Amendment, the older teacher could not file any claims against them and motioned to have the case dropped. After appealing to several courts, the courts finally decided that The Board had waived its sovereign immunity when a claim has been filed of $100,000 or less. This also waived the governmental immunity and the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff.
What is Zimmer-Rubert v. Board of Education of Baltimore County, 409 Md. 200 (2009)($100,000 waiver of immunity held to apply to all claims).?
This court case stated that the teacher of a Shop class was not liable when a student severed two of her own fingers off trying to grab a board off of some machinery by hand that she was working with. The court said that the teacher had given proper instruction, supervision, and had even given a Safety Exam over the proper use of the machine. The teacher even had a proper use booklet for each student to read. They stated that the accident was due (whether or not the teacher was supervising the machine at the time) to contributory negligence; meaning that the students own negligence was the cause, or at least helped in the cause, of the accident. The teacher was not held liable.
What is Miles v. School District No. 138 of Cheyenne County, 281 N.W.2d 396 (Neb. 1979)?
This court case in 1991 stated that two school counselors where held liable for a young girl committing suicide because of duty of care. The Plaintiff (the girl's father) sued the school district stating that if the counselor's had done their duty and reported the talk they had had with his daughter, he could have intervened and stopped her suicide. The girl had made a pact with another school girl stating that they would both commit suicide. This action was reported to the counselors, who pulled the girl in to have a chat, but the girl denied having made any such statements, so they let her go with no follow up. The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, because the counselors should have done the duty and reported the incident to the girl's father.
What is Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, 597.A.2d 447 (Md. 1991)?
This court case formed around two high-school boys being suspended for twenty days without due process by a Chicago high-school. Their lawyer had no evidence to show to the court that either of the boys had suffered due to the suspension, but he argued that they deserved compensatory damages because of the school denying the two boys their right to free education. The court disagreed; however, it ruled that the amount of damages should depend on the circumstances of the case at hand. A student should only be awarded substantial sums for two reasons: as punitive damages to punish school officials who have intentionally deprived the students of their constitutional right, or as compensatory damages for an actual injury, including mental and emotional stress. The court then stated that if there is no evidence of injury then the student is only awarded a nominal sum of money.
What is Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978)?
This court case used comparative negligence (where the court takes into account the relative negligence of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant and awards the damages in proportion to the Plaintiff's negligence) to show that a nine-year-old girl who jumped off a merry-go-round and broke her leg was not the sole cause of her injury. The court found that both the school board and the girl were liable, the school board was negligent because of their lack of supervision, and the girl because she jumped of the merry-go-round. Because the girl was equally responsible as the school for her injury, the court awarded her 50 percent of the normal compensation.
What is Rollins v. Concordia Parish Sch. Bd., 465 So.2d 213 (La. App. 1985)?
This Court Case in North Carolina found that the board of education was not held liable for hiring and keeping a principle that a student had said assaulted her. Although the principle had resigned from a previous position because of allegations that he had sexually assaulted another student, there was no evidence that school officials knew of or reasonably should have known of pedophilic tendencies. Therefore, the students suit of negligent hiring was dropped because the school was not found liable for hiring the principle in question.
What is Medlin v. Bass, 398 S.E.2d 460 (N.C. 1990)?
This court case in 1976 saw the Plaintiff sueing the Defendant for educational malpractice. The Plaintiff was a graduate who could only read at a fifth grade level, and stated that the defendant failed to provide him with adequate instruction in basic skills. The court sided with the Defendant stating that there was no clear standards to determine whether the school had been negligent, there was no way to determine that a teacher's negligence was the proximate cause of the student's injury, and it would impose a great financial problem for schools to hold them to an actionable duty of care in the discharge of their academic functions. Many courts have followed this ruling, making it harder for plaintiff's to win educational malpractice suits.
What is Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. District, 131 Cal. Rptr. 854 (App. 1976)?
This court case in Louisiana found a gym teacher liable for causing mental anguish and suffering to a child. The teacher allegedly pretended to hang the kindergartner's two friends causing the student emotional injuries. The Plaintiff told the court that following the incident, the student developed a variety of psychological problems that medical professionals identified to stem from the stress of seeing his two "dead" friends. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff because of the trauma that the student had obviously been through.
What is Spears v. Jefferson Parish Sch. Bd., 646 So.2d 1104 (La. App. 5th Div. 1994)?