Court Cases
In the case of Medlin v. Bass (1999), the ruling was that a school district was not found liable to a student and were not found guilty of ________ when hiring a principal who had allegedly assaulted the student (Medlin v Bass, 1999).
What is negligent hiring
What was the final in ruling the case of Mancha v. Field Museum of Natural History (1972), a case in which the father of a student, who was attacked during a museum field trip by a group of people who did not attend the school, filed a suit claiming that the teachers were negligent in supervising the child (Mancha V. Field Museum of Natural History, 1972).
The ruling was for the school, with the court stating that the teachers were not liable because the incident was so unlikely to occur and the burden of supervising all children at all times would be almost too much (Mancha V. Field Museum of Natural History, 1972).
True or False: Most states find that young students, especially those under seven years of age, are often capable of contributory negligence.
False. Most states find that if a student is injured under a teachers watch and are young, such as seven or younger, they are not responsible for contributory negligence, even if the student had some fault in their injury due to their negligence (Schimmel, Stellman, Conlon, & Fisher, 2014, p.70)
This type of damage is the most common and is meant to recompense an individual for what they lost, such as in medical expenses, lost salary or pay, or in other provable areas (Schimmel, Stellman, Conlon, & Fisher, 2014, p.83).
Compensatory damages
When someone is determined to be responsible or accountable for something they are considered
What is liable
In the case of Rollins v. Concordia Parish School Board (1985), a case in which a nine year old broke their leg when jumping off a merry go round, the court used __________ to rule that both the student and school were equally negligent (Rollins v. Concordia Parish School Board, 1985).
What is comparative negligence
A prevailing party is the party who is the successful one in that case and is often rewarded fees for attorneys as well (Schimmel, Stellman, Conlon, & Fisher, 2014, p.84) . While it is often the plaintiff that is the prevailing party, it can also sometimes be the defendant, which is most likely the school or teacher, if the plaintiff is suing for frivolous reasons (Schimmel, Stellman, Conlon, & Fisher, 2014, p.84). One such example is in the case of Lyon v. Estrella Foothill High School (2007), a case in which a parent sued claiming their child had their civil rights violated after being suspended for having alcohol on school grounds (Lyon v. Estrella Foothill High School, 2007). The courts final ruling was in favor of the school because:
The court ruled in favor of the school because the claim was considered to be frivolous and therefore a waste of the courts time, making it a burden on the court (Lyon v. Estrella Foothill High School, 2007).
True or False: In most states, it is common that schools can be held liable for educational malpractice meaning that the teachers were negligent or incompetent when performing their duties
False. It is often hard to actually prove educational malpractice, and it is only usually proven in severe and rather rare cases where some sort of law or other rule has been very much violated (Schimmel, Stellman, Conlon, & Fisher, 2014, p.76.)
This type of damage is awarded when the individual who was wronged was not able to actually show the damages and is essentially just a symbolic award (Schimmel, Stellman, Conlon, & Fisher, 2014, p.83).
Nominal damages
When a teacher intentionally does something, such as cause harm or commit some sort of wrong doing, this is known as
What is willful conduct
In the case of Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County (1991), the ruling was that two high school counselors were held liable after they failed to prevent the suicide of two students after they failed to exercise the necessary amount of ______ (Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, 1991)
What is duty of care
In the case of Kaufman v. City of New York (1961), a suit was filed after the father said that the school was not properly supervising a basketball game in which his child was injured after bumping heads with another student (Kaufman v. City of New York, 1961). The court ruled in favor of the school district, claiming that:
The lack of supervision wasn't the proximate cause of the injury, as the father said, and there was no way that any amount of supervising could have even prevented said injury (Kaufman v. City of New York, 1961). The proximate cause essentially just means the approximate reason or thing that caused an injury.
A standard that exists to dictate whether or not school officials or other school personnel acted in the appropriate manner.
What is a good faith standard. This standard allows officials to not be held liable for certain things, granted they do not violate any well known rights (Schimmel, Stellman, Conlon, & Fisher, 2014, p.80)
This type of damage is meant to deter defendants from demonstrating a certain behavior again, and is awarded when the defendant has shown fraud, malice, or was reckless when looking out for the injured persons safety (Schimmel, Stellman, Conlon, & Fisher, 2014, p.83).
Punitive damages
In the case of B.M v State of Montana (1982), a school district was sued for educational malpractice after a mentally handicapped student was placed negligently in a segregated classroom and experienced worsening behavior (B.M. v State of Montana, 1982). The Montana State Constitution states that a certain degree of care should be taken when placing special education students. Was the school liable for educational malpractice in this particular case?
Yes, they were found liable in the final ruling because the Montana State Constitution dictates that a certain degree of thought must be put into placing students with special needs, and this student was not correctly placed and ended up with worse behavior (B.M. v State of Montana, 1982).
In the case of Spears v Jefferson Parish School Board (1994), the ruling stated that a teacher was liable after pretending to have hanged the friends of a student. The student experienced severe trauma and the school was required to pay to cover the cost of ________ because _______ (Spears v. Jefferson Parish School Board, 1994):
The school was required to pay to cover the cost of psychotherapy for the mental anguish and suffering the child went through because of the severe psychological issues the student had developed due to this incident (Spears v. Jefferson Parish School Board, 1994).
True or false: Most school districts can be considered people and therefore can be held liable under Section 1983 when student or teachers’ constitutional rights are violated.
True: Most school districts are considered persons, making it so they can be responsible for things such as this. While school districts can be sued for violating constitutional rights, they are not liable when their teachers are negligent, at least if they are acting negligently without approval from authority (Schimmel, Stellman, Conlon, & Fisher, 2014, p.79-80).
The common law theory that a state or its agencies are sovereign and therefore the people who are employed by them should not be liable for things such as negligence (Schimmel, Stellman, Conlon, & Fisher, 2014, p.72) is an example of
What is governmental immunity
In which case was it ruled that the proper amount of reasonable care was used after a sixth-grade student received and injury after participating in a wrestling match that was required in their physical education class?
What is Toller v.Plainfield (1991)
In the case of Wood v. Strickland (1975), two students were subject to unlawful suspension and did not receive due process. The final ruling found school officials liable (Wood v. Strickland, 1975) because
Under Section 1983, the students constitutional rights were violated, and Section 1983 protects teacher and student's constitutional rights (Wood v. Strickland, 1975).
True or False: Just like with mental anguish and suffering, it is easy for teachers and schools to be held liable for things pertaining to personal humiliation and impairment of reputation.
False. Mental anguish and suffering is already something that is rare for a teacher or school to be liable for (Schimmel, Stellman, Conlon, & Fisher, 2014, p.78). Personal humiliation and impairment of reputation is another thing that is difficult to be held liable for.
A type of immunity that describes that since schools and school districts are a governmental agencies, thus meaning they are sovereign, they can not be sued without consent and are granted some immunity (Schimmel, Stellman, Conlon, & Fisher, 2014, p.72).
What is sovereign immunity.
References:
B.M v. State of Montana, 649 P.2d 425 (Mont. 1982)
Eisel v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Montgomery County, 597 A.2d 237 (III. App. 1991)
Kauffman v. City of New York, 214 N.Y.S.2d 767 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)
Lyon v Estrella Foothills High School, 2007 WL 707124 (D. Ariz. 2007)
Mancha v. Field Museum of Natural History, 283 N.E.2d 899 (III. App. 1972)
Medlin v. Bass, 398 S.E.2d 460 (N.C. 1990)
Rollins v. Concordia Parish Sch. Bd., 465 So.2d 213 (La. App. 1985)
Schimmel, D., Stellman, L. R., Conlon, C. K., & Fischer, L. (2014) Teachers and the Law (9th Edition) Pearson
Spears v. Jefferson Parish Sch. Bd. 646.So.2d 1104 (La. App. 5th Div. 1994)
Toller v. Plainfield Sch. Dist. No. 202, 582 N.W.2d 237 (III. App. 1991)
Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 (1975)