Presentation

Negligence as Applied to Expected Duty and Standards of Care

 Tort: An actionable wrong against the person, property, or reputation of another.  Tort Law: A result of cases or common law rather than statutory or legislative law.

1. The direct invasion of someone’s legal right (invasion of privacy) 2. The breach of some public duty that causes some damage to an individual (denial of constitutional rights) 3. The violation of some private obligation that causes some damage to an individual (negligence)

 reasonable and prudent person  foreseeability  standard care  age of the plaintiffs  an unavoidable accident  assumption of risk  contributory negligence/ causal relationship/ comparative negligence  intentional torts

Negligence: Conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk or harm (One has a legal duty to act as an ordinary, prudent, reasonable person in the circumstance)

1. There must have been a duty to protect 2. A failure to exercise a standard of care must have occurred 3. The conduct must have been the proximate cause of the damage 4. An actual loss (injury of some kind) must result (Use figure page 348) Risk of Negligence

Negligence may occur in one of three ways: Nonfeasance: The failure to act when there is a duty to act An act of omission  Gammon v. Edwardsville (1980) p. 346 Example: A young girl is attacked in the school courtyard after complaining to the school guidance counselor.

Misfeasance: Acting in an improper manner by omission or commission  Omission: Libby v. West Coast Rock Co., Inc. (1975) Example: A boy falls into a hole and is injured when the school knew about the risk of having the hole on school grounds.  Commission: Magabgab v. Orleans Parish School Board (1970) Example: Football player dies because he was treated for heat exhaustion and not heat stroke. p.346

Malfeasance: Acting, but guided by a bad motive An illegal act that should not be performed at all.  Example: Corporal punishment to a student even though the school district prohibits such punishment  Student is injured because of the action.

1. Did the defendant have a duty to the plaintiff? 2. Did the defendant exercise a reasonable standard of care in his or her actions? 3. Were the defendant’s actions or inactions the proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff? 4. Did the plaintiff suffer an actual injury?

A junior high football coach, angry because one of his players misses a tackle, yells at the player, grabs his face mask, and throws the player to the ground, injuring the student’s arm. 1. Did the defendant have a duty to the plaintiff? 2. Did the defendant exercise a reasonable standard of care in his or her actions? 3. Were the defendant’s actions or inactions the proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff? 4. Did the plaintiff suffer an actual injury?

Two basic types of duty:  Duty is inherent in a situation  (nearly every situation in which an educator has to supervise a student)  Duty is voluntarily assumed and a new relationship is created  (When an educator acts in a way that parents or students assume that supervision exists)

Proper Instruction  Ensuring that students are adequately warned of dangers inherent in an activity 1. Lack of instruction (or how to do something) resulted in physical harm to a students LaValley v. Stanford (1947) p Lack of instruction caused harm to intellect

A parent threatens the school with a lawsuit, claiming that her fourth-grade child failed to achieve a passing score on a statewide standards-of-learning test because her child’s teacher deviated from the required syllabus. Negligent to Provide Proper Instruction?

Proper Supervision  Ensuring that an appropriate number of capable adults are providing an adequate level of oversight to protect students and others from foreseeable danger. Armlin v. Board of Education (1971) Wilbur v. City of Binghamton (1946) p 361

A student is injured by a rubber band shot across the classroom by an unknown student. The injured student claims that the teacher was out in the hall talking to another teacher when the incident occurred. Negligent Supervision?

Proper Maintenance  Ensuring that equipment, facilities, and grounds are kept in proper repair and pose no foreseeable safety hazards to students or others. Hatlett v. Oswego-Appalachian School District (1979) Woodring v. Board of Education of Manhassset Union Free School District (1981) p.366

A woman in Utah suffered injuries after slipping and falling on an icy sidewalk leading to the side entrance of a school. Negligence to Proper Maintenance?

Field Trips  Maintaining the same duty and standard of care that would exist if students were on the school premises Arnold v. Hayslett (1981) p. 372 Morris v. Douglas County School District (1965) p. 370

A debate coach allows a parent with a suspended driver’s license to transport students to a meet. It is called to the debate coach’s attention when the car, traveling in a caravan, is stopped by the police for having a faulty muffler. Negligence to Field Trips?

Post-injury Treatment  Taking appropriate care of a student who was injured on school grounds or during a school- sponsored event Welch v. Dunsmuir Joint Union High School (1958) Rickle v. Oakdale Union Grammar School District (1953) p. 375

During a physical education class, a student’s wrist bone popped out of place. The teacher was able to maneuver the bone back into place and when asked how he knew how to do that he responded, “my old coach used to do it for me all the time…never missed a game!”

Athletics and Spectator Safety  Ensuring that participants are properly selected, instructed, and supervised; that equipment and facilities are maintained and safe, and that proper medical attention is available in the event of injury to participants or spectators.