Supervision of Students June 23, 2009

Overview Decision Points Case Scenarios Stupidity in Action

Decision Points Supervision of students is dependent on two key factors. Duty of Care Foreseeable Danger

Duty of Care Does a duty to care for the safety of someone else exist?

Foreseeable Danger Did the school employee exercised the amount of care required by the foreseeable degree of risk (the duty of care is higher in more hazardous circumstances than in less hazardous circumstances -- shop class is more hazardous than the library; therefore, requiring more supervision).

Foreseeable Danger Courts also say that younger children have even greater risks because they are "less able and less likely to discern danger.

Case Scenarios The Policy A school policy, established earlier by the principal, calls for students to file to lunch in groups of six. The teacher is expected to remain in the classroom until the last group leaves and then remain in the cafeteria until the last students return to class after lunch.

Case Scenarios The Situation A teacher does not come back with the last group but remains in the cafeteria to finish her lunch. While the teacher is finishing her lunch in the cafeteria, a sixth-grade student in the classroom lost the sight in one eye during some "horseplay" involving two other students.

Case Scenarios The Decision One is bound to anticipate and provide against what usually happens and what is likely to happen; but it would impose too heavy a responsibility to hold [the defendants] bound in a like manner to guard against what is unusual and unlikely to happen or what, as it is sometimes said, is only remotely and slightly probable.

Case Scenarios The Decision (Continued) Comparing the facts of this case with the facts of three North Carolina Supreme Court cases in which the likelihood of an injury was far greater, the Court of Appeals concluded that… 

Case Scenarios The Decision (Continued) . . . foreseeability of harm to pupils in the class or at the school is the test of the extent of the teacher's duty to safeguard . . . pupils from dangerous acts of fellow pupils, and absent circumstances under which harm to . . . pupils might have been reasonably foreseen during her absence . . . [ 

Case Scenarios The Decision (Continued) . . . [the teacher] was not under a duty either to remain with her class at all times or to provide adult supervision at all times while she was absent. James v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

Case Scenarios The Situation During a lunch period the teacher was out of the room eating lunch. A student entered the shop class and cut his hand while using a bench saw.

Case Scenarios The Decision The Florida court allowed the student who cut his hand on a bench saw in the school shop to submit his case to a jury even though the accident occurred during lunch period while the teacher was out of the room. School officials objected that they had no duty to supervise the room at all times. The court disagreed, concluding that the risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable.

Case Scenarios The Background A physical education teacher in a Louisiana high school taught a trampoline unit as part of the physical education curriculum. The teacher taught proper safety techniques for using the trampoline. Included in the safety instructions were instructions that only one or two people were allowed on the trampoline at any given time. The dangers of horseplay were also covered and prohibited.

Case Scenarios The Situation Five girls mounted the trampoline after the teacher left the stage where the trampoline was located.

Case Scenarios The Decision The evidence revealed that the five girls had mounted the trampoline after the teacher had left the stage where the trampoline was located.

Case Scenarios The Decision The court acknowledged that teachers must exercise a degree of supervision commensurate with attendant circumstances and the age of the children under supervision, but concluded that the plaintiff was well acquainted with the trampoline and how to use it properly, that she knew no more than two people were allowed to use it at the same time, and that the teacher exercised reasonable supervision over the girls.

Stupidity in Action Crack the Whip Crack the Whip is a simple outdoor children's game that involves physical coordination, and is usually played in small groups, either on grass or ice. One player, chosen as the "head" of the whip, runs (or skates) around in random directions, with subsequent players holding on to the hand of the previous player.

Stupidity in Action Crack the Whip The entire "tail" of the whip moves in those directions, but with much more force toward the end of the tail. The longer the tail, the more the forces act on the last player, and the tighter they have to hold on.

Stupidity in Action Crack the Whip As the game progresses, and more players fall off, some of those who were previously located near the end of the tail and have fallen off can "move up" and be in a more secure position by grabbing onto the tail as it is moving, provided they can get back on before some of the others do.

Stupidity in Action The Situation An Illinois teacher was supervising recess. The students started playing "crack the whip." The teacehr knew that the game was not allowed at school but did not stop the game.

Stupidity in Action The Decision The supervising teacher not only was present when the accident happened, but she also testified that she knew the game was forbidden but did not act soon enough to prevent the injury. The Illinois Jury awarded the student's family $200,000 in compensation for hip injuries the student suffered while playing "crack the whip."

Stupidity in Action The Decision The supervising teacher not only was present when the accident happened, but she also testified that she knew the game was forbidden but did not act soon enough to prevent the injury. The Illinois Jury awarded the student's family $200,000 in compensation for hip injuries the student suffered while playing "crack the whip."