The School as a Safe Place

1. The School as a Safe Place • Schools are presumed to be safe places where teachers teach and students learn. • The prevailing view held by the courts is that prudent professional educators, acting in place of parents, are supervising students under their care and ensuring, to the greatest extent possible, that they are safe. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

2. By and large, courts have fallen short of ruling that students have a constitutional right to be protected from harm on school grounds. Two lower courts, however, have come close to doing so. In Hoseman v. Oakland Unified School District and Doe v. Taylor, the former case involving theft and assault and the later case involving sexual abuse of a female student. Both affirmed that students have a right to attend campuses that are safe, secure, and crime free. • Points of Emphasis: • 1. Requiring schools to constitutionally maintain safe campuses is a standard that is too high to reach. • 2. Tort liability does not guarantee that injuries will never occur on school grounds. It simply requires that school personnel take prudent steps to protect students from foreseeable harm. • 3. Holding school personnel to a strict constitutional standard will not likely receive widespread court endorsement. • 4. A property interest in attending school carries no constitutional guarantees against injury. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

3. Liability of School Personnel • School personnel are responsible for their own tortious acts in the school environment. • Liability involving school personnel normally falls into two categories--intentional torts and unintentional. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

4. Intentional torts such as assault, battery, libel, slander, defamation, false arrest, malicious prosecution and invasion of privacy require proof of intent or willfulness; • whereas simple negligence, as an unintentional tort, does not require such proof of intent or willfulness. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

5. Wood v. Strickland • Discussion: • Three high school students were expelled for spiking punch at a school-sponsored event which was in violation of school policy. The school board expelled these students for the remaining semester which was roughly three months. The students and their parents filed suit under sec. 1983, a federal statute that provides that any person who under the color of state law, deprives anyone within the jurisdiction of the United States of constitutional rights or of rights secured by federal law shall be liable to the injured party in a lawsuit for monetary damages or other relief. • The U.S. Supreme Court held that a school officials’ immunity from monetary damages under sec. 1983 depends on two elements: (1) the officials acted with the sincere belief that they were doing right without a malicious intent to deprive students of their constitutional rights, and (2) officials lose immunity if they knew or should have reasonably known that the action they took would violate the constitutional rights of students. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

6. Points of Emphasis: • 1. The court found that public policy and prior legal decisions require qualified good faith immunity from damages for officials so that those who act in good faith and within the scope of their duties will not be intimidated in executing their responsibilities with threats of a lawsuit. • 2. The objective element which requires administration to act in accordance with settled law and the constitutional rights of those affected by their action is a reasonable condition for immunity from a lawsuit for damages. • 3. However, if school officials act out of ignorance or reckless disregard for settled law, officials may be sued. 4. Section 1983 provides for federal court correction on only those improper • exercises of discretion that result in violation of specific constitutional guarantees. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

7. Carey v. Pinhus Discussion: Two students were suspended, one for smoking marijuana during school hours on school property and the other for wearing an earring in violation of a school regulation intended to discourage gang activity in the school. The district held that both students had been suspended in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It further ruled that school officials were not entitled to qualified damages under Wood v. Strickland. • Points of Emphasis: • 1. In the absence of proof for actual injury, students who are suspended with requisite procedural due process are entitled to recover only nominal damages. • 2. The primary purpose of Sec. 1981 damage awards is to compensate persons for injuries incurred by denial of constitutional rights. • 3. Liability is probable when students’ constitutional rights are willfully violated by school officials. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

8. Priester v. Lowndes School District Discussion: An African American high school athlete in Mississippi filed suit alleging that he was attacked by fellow athletes which resulted in a serious eye injury. He alleged further that the attack was racially motivated based on racial epithets made to him by his football coach in front of other athletes one of whom allegedly attacked him. • According to the plaintiff, the coach’s behavior toward him created an environment where his assailants felt free to abuse him. His eye injury occurred during a full contact blocking drill when his assailant stuck his hands through his helmet. His claims of conspiracy and a violation of his civil rights were not sustained by the court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that neither the school district nor its officials were liable for his injury. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

9. Points of Emphasis: • 1. There is an assumption of risk involved when students participate in contact sports. • 2. There was no evidence which suggested that the coach could have prevented the injury. • 3. The Fifth Circuit Court rejected plaintiff’s attempts to demonstrate a conspiracy in an • attempt to establish that the assailant’s actions amounted to state action. • 4. The plaintiff was unable to demonstrate that the state’s failure to protect an individual • from private violence violated his due process rights. • 5. Although not established in this case, assumption of risk is not a proper defense and will • not relieve a coach or the district from liability if there is evidence of negligence or • inadequate instruction regarding proper techniques that should be used in contact sports. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

10. Vicarious Liability • Since school districts are deemed employers of teachers, they also may be held vicariously liable for the negligent behavior of their employees. • Under the old theory of respondeat superior, the master is only responsible for authorized acts of its servants or agents. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

11. Foreseeability • Foreseeability is a crucial element in liability cases, especially in cases involving negligence. • Foreseeability is defined as the teacher’s or administrator’s ability to predict or anticipate that a certain activity or situation may prove harmful to students. An accident ready to happen… EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

12. Once this determination is made, there is an expectation that prudent steps be taken to prevent harm to students. • Failure to act in a prudent manner may result in liability claims. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

13. Assault • An assault is an offer to use force in a hostile manner which causes apprehension. • The person being assaulted normally must feel a degree of immediacy in the sense that the one committing the assault will execute it promptly and has the apparent capacity to do so. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

14. Battery • Abattery has occurred when physical contact actually takes place. In practice, a battery is a successful assault. • A battery involves unwelcomed and unprivileged body contact involving another person that is hostile and unlawful. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

15. Assault and battery affect teachers, administrators and students in the school environment. • Every person is responsible for his or her actions in cases involving assault and battery. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

16. Defamation • Defamation occurs when false statements are made about another person. • These statements generally are ones that tend to harm a person’s good name, reputation or subject the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

17. Certain statements are privileged if made in good faith and within the scope of educator’s duty. • Therefore, school personnel who expect to be protected by qualified privilege must not make false statements regarding students or colleagues with malice or the intent to harm. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

18. False Imprisonment • False imprisonment occurs when a student is detained illegally by the teacher or the principal. • False imprisonment is considered to be an intentional tort. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

19. Wofford v. Evans • Discussion: An interesting Fourteenth Amendment claim arose in Virginia when school officials failed to notify parents prior to detaining their child during the investigation of serious allegations of student misconduct. • The court held that school officials did not violate a parent’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by failing to notify them of the detention. The court concluded further that the detention was necessary to investigate reports that the child possessed a weapon which also did not violate the child’s right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

20. Points of Emphasis: • 1. When detention of a student is critical to safety, parents may not always be notified in advance of the detention. • 2. School officials were informed by a student who claimed that she saw M.D., the student dispose of the gun in the woods. • 3. School officials have a legal duty to protect the safety of all students under their care. Therefore, it was appropriate for them to detain M.D. and investigate the claim of the student who informed them that M.D. had a gun. • 4. Failure to act by school officials could have been fatal had M.D. possessed a gun and • decided to use it. • 5. Courts are becoming increasingly lenient toward public school officials in cases • involving dangerous weapons and school violence based on their duty to ensure that the • school is a safe place. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

21. King v. Northwest Security Inc. • Discussion: A case involving class action liability arose in Indiana when a student was brutally beaten by four other students in the school’s parking lot. The student sued the district and the security corporation hired by the district for failure to take reasonable steps to provide adequate security against criminal acts of third parties. The court held that the district cannot be sued for failure to prevent crime but may be held legally responsible for failure to take reasonable precautions. The court ruled that the security firm could be held liable for negligence in carrying out its contractual obligation to the district. • Points of Emphasis: • 1. There is a higher standard of care for school officials in districts where frequent crime occurs. • 2. Foreseeability is an important concept for school officials when it is known that frequent criminal acts of violence and crime occur on their premises. • 3. The courts do not expect school officials to ensure that crime will never occur on school grounds but they do expect school officials to take reasonable steps to prevent and/or minimize violent crime. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

22. Unintentional Torts • Unintentional tort is a wrong perpetrated by someone who fails to exercise that degree of care in doing what is otherwise permissible; i.e., acts negligently. • Negligence is perhaps the most prevalent source of litigation involving injury to students. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

23. Negligence is generally viewed as the failure to exercise a reasonable standard of care which results in harm or injury to another person. • Most negligence cases involve civil wrongs, although there may be instances in which the accused faces both civil and criminal charges. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

24. Standard of Care • Standard of care is an important concept in cases involving liability of school personnel. • It requires that school personnel exercise the same degree of care which a person ofordinary prudence would exercise under the same or similar conditions. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

25. This standard of care will vary depending on particular circumstances. • The level of care due students changes based upon the age, maturity, experience and mental capacity of students, as well as the nature of the learning activities in which they are involved. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

26. Titus v. Lindberg • Discussion: This case involved on campus supervision of students before the school day began. A student arrived on campus and proceeded to park his bike. As he turned the corner toward the bike rack, he was injured when he was struck in the eye by a paper clip shot by a student who was on campus waiting for a bus to take him to another campus. The facts revealed that this same student had shot another student just five minutes prior to this incident. The principal provided supervision for all students who arrived early. At the time of the second incident, the principal had gone inside the school to allow the milkman to deliver milk. The principal was held liable. The injured student, Titus, was awarded $44,000 for damages. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

27. Points of Emphasis: • 1. Adequate supervision is based on the quality of supervision and the quantity of students in need of supervision. Is it reasonable to assume that one person, the principal, could not adequately provide supervision for a larger number of fairly immature students without additional school personnel? • 2. Negligence is negligence irrespective of defenses that school personnel may attempt to use. Negligence will generally result in liability charges against school personnel who are responsible for injury. • 3. The fact that students arrive on campus early does not exonerate school personnel from liability if they know or should have known that students may be injured or harmed in the absence of supervision. • 4. Foreseeability requires that a reasonable effort be made to protect students from being harmed by other students. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

28. Defenses for NegligenceContributory Negligence • If the evidence reveals that persons claiming injury exhibited conduct that fell below a reasonable standard, liability charges against school personnel may be abrogated. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

29. Assumption of Risk • Assumption of risk is commonly used as a defense in situations involving various types of contact related activities such as athletic teams, pep squads and certain intramural activities. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

30. Even though a student assumes an element of risk, it does not relieve school personnel in cases where they fail to meet a reasonable standard of care based upon the age, maturity, risk and nature of the risk associated with the activity. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

31. King v. Kartenson (field trip) Discussion: An eighth grade class consisting of 110 students took a field trip to Nashville. A luncheon was planned at a restaurant across the street from the park where the class visited. Three students who finished their lunch early requested permission to return to the park. The teacher granted permission but advised the students to be careful. One student reached the curb, stopped and looked both ways but was struck by an automobile. The student’s parents brought a suit against the teacher claiming negligence for not escorting the students across the street. The lower court held for the parents by ruling that the teachers were negligent. On appeal, the State Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision finding that the injured student was 13 years old, experienced no hearing or vision problems, and was regarded as very mature for his age. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

32. Points of Emphasis: • 1. The age and maturity of students and the instruction they receive are important factors in determining if fault rests with the teacher when an injury occurs. • 2. The case could be viewed as an exception to the normal posture taken by the courts and should not be viewed as a license by teachers not to exercise the prudence in supervisory field trip activities. • 3. Reasonableness and prudence are key areas the courts will assess in determining where fault lies in liability cases. 4. The standard of care is generally higher in matters relating to field trips due to • unfamiliarity with the environment in which students are placed. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

33. Comparative Negligence • Under comparative negligence, acts of those responsible are compared in the degree of negligence attributed in an injury situation. • Juries will normally determine the degree of negligence which may range from slight to ordinary to gross depending on the circumstances. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)

34. Immunity • Immunity as a legal concept has diminished in terms of impact. • It is based on the old common law of sovereign immunity, “The King can do no wrong,” meaning that the state or federal government is protected from suit and cannot be held liable for injuries that resulted in the proper execution of governmental functions. EDAD 667, School Law and the Public Schools (Essex)