May 28, 2017

Student Safety: Screening and Background Checks for School Volunteers

student safetySchools, after-school programs, summer camps, sunday schools, daycares and other agencies that supervise children are responsible for student safety of children in their care. Failing to apply the same attention to ensuring that non-licensed individuals, such as volunteers, meet the same standards as teachers and other paid staff can place students — and ultimately a school, district, or other agency — at risk. When the history of a volunteer or chaperone on an overnight school trip includes something that would raise a red flag but the school is unaware of it, school officials are not able to make an informed decision about whether or not that person should be allowed to interact with children.

The risks of not adequately screening individuals who have direct contact with children have been apparent in cases for which Education Management Consulting, LLC, has been engaged to review and provide expert witness services. Many such cases involve harm, injury, negligent supervision and even sexual abuse of children by volunteers. At times, our reviews of school policies, personnel records, and testimony have determined that failure to conduct a reasonably appropriate background check and screening was the proximate cause of harm to children.

In one such case, the school argued that there was no state requirement for a district to apply the same level of scrutiny to volunteers as when it hires teachers. The school had conducted a standard criminal background check, but unlike the standard it applied to teachers, the school did not conduct interviews with supervisors at past volunteer posts. The volunteer was allowed to participate in a classroom on a regular basis. Over time, he developed an inappropriate sexual relationship with one of the students. A case review discovered that he had served as a volunteer in another school district, where he was told not to come back because the administration was uncomfortable about his interactions with students. The volunteer had listed the prior school and his supervisor on his volunteer application, but the new school did not contact the prior school for a reference. Had the school done so, it likely would not have compromised their student safety and would have heard about the previous school’s concerns and rejected his volunteer application.

 

State Requirements for Volunteer Screenings and Background Checks

Background checks and screenings of teachers are required in every state, and school districts have developed procedures to provide reasonable assurance that only teachers of high moral quality come in contact with children. When a background check reveals that a candidate was convicted of domestic violence or another crime against a person, the school may be prohibited from hiring that person.

Conducting background checks on prospective teachers as a student safety measure has been established in the field of education administration for decades. However, it wasn’t until 2000 that states began to pass laws addressing background checks on volunteers, and to this day, a patchwork of legal requirements exists. New Mexico, for instance, mandates background checks on all school volunteers, while New Jersey “allows” but does not require boards of education to conduct criminal record checks on volunteers. Volunteers in Florida schools are screened only for criminal histories logged in the state of Florida but not in other states. When state law is less strict for volunteers than it is for teachers, schools are free to adopt their own policies that are more stringent.

National guidelines developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Association of School Nurses encourage schools to conduct criminal background checks on all volunteers. To help schools implement this guideline, Texas Education Code allows a school district to obtain from any law enforcement or criminal justice agency all criminal records that relate to a person who serves as or has applied to be a school volunteer. In Pennsylvania, schools must check volunteer applicants’ backgrounds through the state Department of Human Services and Pennsylvania State Police, and are also required to obtain a federal criminal history. Seattle Public Schools screen all volunteers who work directly with students through the Washington Access to Criminal History background check system — the same process used for teachers and other licensed staff — and conducts reference checks. Volunteers are allowed to begin service before the screening process is completed, provided there is proper supervision. The volunteer’s continued involvement with the school depends on the results of the check.

 

Student Safety in Specialized Programs and Placements

While schools have a responsibility to protect student safety on campus, on school-sponsored trips, and at school activities, are they also responsible for the protection of students who attend programs at a school that is not under its direct control, such as a special education or vocational school? Should the school that assigns students to such programs assure that the employees and volunteers at the receiving school meet certain screening standards? If a school allows a private after-school program to operate in its gym, should it assure that volunteers in that program meet the same standard as if they volunteered in the school?

These are among the many questions in cases for which we have been engaged. Every case is uniquely different, and an analysis leading to an expert opinion can be very complex. In each case, however, the ultimate standard of professional care is that the school, through its administration, has a responsibility to act appropriately and reasonably to protect the health, safety, and well-being of its children. It is reasonable for the home school to expect that an external program or service will effectively screen employees and volunteers who come in contact with its students.

Examining one of our cases involving a child with a disability will help to illustrate. A high school student was placed in a class for students with cognitive and physical disabilities. As she got older, it was necessary for the school to deliver vocational training services through a separate agency. School personnel, the student’s parents, and others involved in this decision understood that the student demonstrated inappropriate, sexually oriented behavior toward peers and needed careful supervision wherever she was educated. This also required that those working with her at the school, including teachers and volunteers, were appropriately screened. Knowing of her propensity for this type of behavior should have caused her school to consider whether those she would come in contact with at the new placement would allow or encourage this behavior. Shortly after the student was placed at this program, and in my opinion because she was not adequately supervised, an adult volunteer engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with her. As part of the overall review of the case, the personnel file of the volunteer was examined and it revealed that he was not screened by the vocational program administration — in my opinion, a failure of the home school to meet the professional standard of care. Teachers at the program needed to be licensed, which required a criminal background check. Volunteers, however, were allowed to work in the program without a background check. It would have been reasonable for the school sending its student to the vocational program to inquire about the program’s policy regarding background checks for volunteers and then determine whether the student would reasonably be protected from harm.

 

Student Safety and Standard of Professional Care

When reviewing cases similar to those discussed above, we consider state law and school district policy as the standard, and then consider the overall responsibility of a school to protect its students. This is the overriding standard of professional care. If an adult staff member or volunteer who was not adequately screened should sexually assault a student, then an argument may be made that the proximate cause of the child’s injury was failure on the part of the school to fully investigate the person’s background in order to reasonably assure the protection of students. On the other hand, if the school followed state law and its own policy, applying the same standard to approving volunteers as it did for teachers and other staff, and yet an inappropriate relationship developed because of other circumstances, then it can be argued that the screening process was appropriate.

Does everyone in a school or other agency who has contact with children have to be screened? And what is an appropriate and reasonable level of screening? The distinction that should be made is whether a person is a visitor to a program or a volunteer who has a defined regular role in it. Parents have the right to visit their child’s school and to observe their child in class. They can have lunch with their child and attend classroom and school events. In this context, the parent is a visitor, and complete background checks are not required. When a parent or other person takes on a regular role in the classroom or supervises on an overnight class trip, more scrutiny is required. Providing assistance in these ways shifts the person’s classification from visitor to volunteer. If the person is in the school on a regular basis and others expect to see the person frequently, then he or she is considered a volunteer, and the school must make an informed determination as to whether or not to allow the person to interact with students.

Schools are held to strict requirements when hiring licensed school personnel. Applying the same standard to the screening of volunteers is one way to protect children from harm and keep them safe.

In Loco Parentis: Duty of Educators and Professionals in Residential Programs for Children

Educator DutySome of our most vulnerable children are relegated to a life away from parents, family, and their school to live where other adults take the place of their parents and are responsible for their custody or care – legally defined as in loco parentis. This occurs when children are placed in residential centers for the treatment of mental illness, schools for the deaf and blind, or similar facilities for children who require extensive medical care and management.

In my September 2015 article, I discussed parental and professional standards of care when considering supervision of children in residential placements. The reasonable and prudent parent uses judgment in making decisions about their children’s care. Parents usually make decisions carefully, weighing the benefits and potential risks to come to a sensible decision that is in the best interest of the child. When professionals care for children, they have a duty to meet the same standard, but they also have a higher duty to meet the standards of a reasonably prudent professional. Professionals such as teachers, program administrators, psychologists, counselors, doctors, and nurses have the legal responsibility to exercise the level of care, diligence, and skill prescribed in the code of practice of their profession, the legal requirements of the government, and in the policies of the residential program.

When a child has a condition or disability that is not common and when the child’s disability cannot adequately be addressed in the local school, community, or at home, placement at a specialized facility to meet these needs may be required. These placements provide educational, medical, and residential programs. Staff who supervise children where they live act in place of parents. These adults are expected to protect the child from dangers and prevent the child from engaging in harmful or irresponsible behaviors. This responsibility fulfills the reasonably prudent parent standard of care. In addition, the care of these children extends beyond the simple need to house them, and meeting the professional duty extends in tandem with their needs and disabilities.

 

Duty Under In Loco Parentis

In a residential facility, in loco parentis refers to how a supervisor or caregiver who directly oversees the actions of a child deals with the child’s conduct. This is the same as when a parent sets boundaries for his or her child, then instructs, guides, or disciplines the child. In a residential setting, the person who is standing in place of the parent holds authority over the child, acting in loco parentis.  Elements of in loco parentis define the duty that educators and caregivers owe to their students.  This includes principles of negligence and the duty to anticipate foreseeable dangers and take reasonable steps to protect students from those dangers.

When an adult acting in loco parentis steps over the line with regard to the role of a reasonably prudent parent, the residential facility may be liable for the adult’s actions. As an example, a caregiver’s use of undue force that would fall under the definition of assault and battery may be cause for liability if the child is injured. If a child assaults and injures another child during a moment of inadequate supervision, this also may also be a cause for liability. The Ohio Supreme Court has stated that although a teacher may stand in loco parentis with regard to enforcement of authority, the teacher does not stand in loco parentis with regard to one’s negligent acts and thus is not accorded the same tort immunity given parents (Baird v. Hosmer, 46 Ohio St. 2d 273, 75 Ohio Ops. 2d 323, 347 N.E. 2d 553 (1976)). In the same way, while a person in charge of a child in a residence is considered acting in loco parentis, that person is not safe under tort immunity if he or she failed to act as a reasonably prudent parent.

 

Professional Standard of Care

A residential program becomes that child’s world. All his or her needs must be met, including shelter, food, medical care, counseling, and recreation, just as if the child was living at home and attending school. In this all-inclusive setting, there are people trained as professionals — teachers, counselors, psychologists, and supervisors — who have total responsibility for the health, safety, and well-being of the child. These programs must have adequate plans for meeting the needs of the children in their care, and these plans should be shared across disciplines and departments.

For example, if a student has demonstrated behavioral problems while on a school trip, that information should be provided to the adults who are in charge in the residence and are acting in loco parentis. This process is similar to a schoolteacher informing a parent at home about a child’s behavior. The intent is to work together with the parents in the child’s interest. When this system is nonexistent or breaks down in a residential setting, resulting in student injury, the program may be open to liability. If a teacher observes a student running away during a class trip but fails to share that information with those in charge of the residence, the agency might be liable if the child wanders off and is injured. The agency had knowledge of the student’s behavior, failed to report it to those in charge of the residence and, overall, failed to enact a cross-departmental plan to protect the child.

To protect children from harm and the agency from liability, it is important to conduct the required evaluations and assessments, have as much information about a student as possible, seek additional information when warranted, assess and evaluate behaviors and symptoms, share that information with key staff in residential, school, and health departments, and develop comprehensive plans that account for safety and supervision. All professionals involved, including residential staff, should pay attention to a child’s new behaviors, manifestations of challenges, and conditions that are part of their disability or diagnosis, and use that information as part of a coordinated approach for meeting the standard of care for the child in their custody.

For example, I was engaged as the education administration and supervision expert witness in a case involving a child who had been receiving extensive counseling through a residential program’s health department. His tendency toward violent behavior and information about triggers for such behavior were not shared with other adults in the program, nor was this information used to develop a safety plan. Treating professionals did not assess and evaluate the student’s key signs of mental health deterioration, despite many instances that should have caused them to provide additional care. Eventually, the student suffered a mental breakdown, broke into an administrative office, grabbed scissors, and escaped the building. Police who arrived on the scene shot the student when he did not respond to their demands to put the scissors down. Mentally, he was not aware of what was going on and did not understand the police’s instructions.

My review and analysis of this case led me to conclude that the program had sufficient information about the student’s emotional and behavioral issues but failed to address those manifesting behaviors, and on the day of the incident, staff was unable to communicate effectively with him to de-escalate the behaviors. Before being shot, the student was confronted by a teacher who did not have complete information about the student’s behavioral issues or how to deal with them. The teacher’s actions escalated the behavior, placed other students and school staff in harm’s way, and ended in student being shot. If the program had an overall safety plan for this student that included staff training in how to deal with him, it is less likely that he would have been shot. It was my opinion that the program, through its administration and other staff, breached the standard of professional care when it failed to address the student’s mental health issues, failing also to inform and train all staff about the student’s problems and how to protect the student and others from harm.

 

Training and Oversight are Essential to Avoid Residential Program Liability

Numerous case reviews by Education Management Consulting, LLC, have concluded that a residential facility or agency had access to policies and provincial, state, or federal rules, but those policies were not implemented nor was staff adequately trained to use them. In some of these cases, the result was that children were injured, sexually abused, or physically assaulted by other students. Prevention, detection, and reporting of child abuse, knowing how to administer appropriate restraints without injuring a child who acts out, and understanding the requirements for continuous supervision of children are just a few of the areas that require training and oversight. If an injured plaintiff can demonstrate that the facility had in-house policies or that government policies were available but it failed to train staff in those policies and supervise their work, then the program may not be able to avoid liability.

Frequently, when I review a case as an expert witness, I find that the facility had adequate policies, the supervision of children and staff-to-child ratios were good, and the discipline code and rules for children were well thought out and reasonable, but there was a breach in the system. In one such case, for example, a child in a residential school sexually assaulted another in the bathroom. On paper, the policies and supervision procedures looked good. The missing link was that staff responsible for supervising children had knowledge that the predator had done this before, yet made no attempt to provide additional supervision when this particular child was alone with another.

Policies are only as good as the training and monitoring of staff responsible for implementing them. In this case, the facility had knowledge of one resident’s sexually aggressive behavior, but failed to take any reasonable steps to prevent her from harming another child. They failed to provide her with any counseling or heightened supervision, and in fact one of her first offenses was not reported to outside authorities for investigation. In essence, she was allowed to continue her inappropriate behavior. If the facility provided her with appropriate follow-up counseling, reported the first incident to the authorities, and stepped up its supervision of her, it would have been, in my opinion, less likely that this incident would have occurred. 

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry provides guidelines for residential treatment programs in its 2010 publication, Principles of Care for Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Mental Illnesses in Residential Treatment Centers. The Academy offers an approach for professionals about the provision of services and some important training and educational standards, such as hiring staff with appropriate credentials and experience.  There are other similar publications, training programs and professionals available to assist residential care centers with training and keeping up with the standards in the field.

 

Summary

On December 3, 2014, the Chicago Tribune reported that thousands of children in residential treatment centers in Illinois are assaulted, sexually abused, and run away. The residential centers promise round-the-clock supervision and therapy to children who are wards of the state and who have histories of abuse and neglect, as well as to other disadvantaged youths with mental health and behavioral problems. The Tribune reported that patient-on-patient sexual assault is commonplace at some facilities, and vulnerable children are terrorized by older ones. Some are preyed on sexually by adults paid to care for them. In the three years ending with 2013, Illinois residential facilities reported 428 alleged cases of sexual assault or abuse of children in their care to the state Department of Children and Family Services. The state and program administrators said they are underfunded and overwhelmed by too many children, many of whom don’t belong at the facility. In a legal assessment of whether a program, its administration, or staff acted appropriately and reasonably in a specific circumstance, however, these are no excuses.

Adults in schools, camps, daycare centers, and residential programs have a duty to protect children from harm. But when children are placed away from home, out of sight of parents in residential programs, it isn’t unusual for them to be subjected to harm.  Unfortunately abuse and mistreatment typically comes to light after years of poor management, lack of training, lack of government oversight, and staff incompetency. In so many institutions and residential programs, children are often forgotten — out of the sight of the public and their parents. Some programs began in the 1800’s when social capabilities and awareness, along with frustration and lack of resources, forced them into existence. We are just realizing now that so much mistreatment and abuse has taken place but kept quiet and children were hurt.

Student Injury and Standard of Professional Care Analysis in Schools

student injuryRisk of personal injury to children is reduced when activities, facilities, equipment, personnel, and supervision are brought into compliance with “standards.” There are several sources of standards. Some standards are mandated by law through statutes. Additional standards are set forth by oversight authorities, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Camping Association, the National Federation of High School Athletic Associations, or the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, to name a few. Other standards involve the customary professional practice of those conducting such activities. Ignorance of such standards is no excuse for failing to comply and schools and agencies with children have a duty to be proactive about implementing standards in order to prevent student injury.

As an education and child supervision expert, I begin my review and analysis of the issues of a case by identifying standards in the field — those mandated by law, or statutory standards, those set forth by oversight authorities as well as the customary professional practice of the school, summer camp or daycare — and then determine whether they met those standards. If my review and analysis demonstrates that standards were not met, then the next step is to consider whether a breach of one or more standards was a proximate cause of alleged student injury. Determining whether a risk of injury exists is, in part, assessed by ascertaining whether compliance with standards is met. For example, although there may not be standards mandated by law for camps that offer swimming as part of their programs, the American Camping Association, an oversight authority, specifies minimum requirements for a lifeguard. Meeting this standard requires a minimum level of training for the lifeguard and also certification. If the camp employs a lifeguard who does not meet these requirements, there is an inherent risk of student injury since the lifeguard was not trained to receive the certification.

Federal statutes, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), require that schools provide a certain level of programs and services for children with disabilities so that children can benefit from their education. Regulations implemented for IDEA specify that schools must develop an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for a child with a disability and that the IEP be reasonably calculated for the child to benefit from his or her education. This, then, becomes a standard of care for comparing how the school met or failed to meet the needs of a particular child. If a child displays significant behavior issues, then the statute requires the school to conduct a behavior assessment and develop a behavior plan to be followed by school employees. Failure to develop an appropriate and reasonable behavior plan as part of an IEP for a child with behavioral problems and failure to train teachers in its implementation may be considered a breach of the professional standard of care. If a plaintiff became seriously injured in a fight with the student who exhibited behavioral issues, and if the school had notice of the student’s aggressive behavior but failed to address it through the IEP, the school may be held liable for breach of the professional standard of care and student injury.

Schools must develop policies to guide their operations, to provide educational services for students, to develop curriculum and to supervise teachers, all for the end result of providing education in a safe environment. Schools have policies that reflect their staff’s responsibility to report child abuse, how to implement the student code of conduct and how to curb hazing in athletics. For example, every state requires local school boards to develop and implement a policy to address school bullying. This becomes another source of the standard of professional care. If a student was identified as one who had bullied others and later seriously injures a student in a fight, one of the questions to be asked is: Did the school meet the professional standard of care required by state statute and by its own policy? Is there a nexus between any breach of care and the student injury? If the school did not have a policy to address bullying or if the policy in place failed to meet key components of state statute such as staff training requirements, those breaches may be a proximate cause of student injury.

 

Student Injury Lawsuits and Professional Standards of Care

Professional standards set the backdrop for case review and analysis. At the top of the list are regulatory requirements in the form of statute, regulation, and licensing standards. In cases involving the death or serious student injury, these are first standards I identify. For example, if the state of Delaware requires that the ratio of certified, trained adults to three-year-olds in a childcare program is one adult for every five children, then that becomes one of the standards. I determine whether the daycare acted within the professional standard of care and whether its actions were appropriate and reasonable under the specific circumstances. If, as an example, a child climbed on top of a table in a classroom, stood up, and was pushed off by another student, I determine how many children were under the care and supervision of the teacher at that time. If the teacher was responsible for 15 students when the injury occurred but the law says there were only to be five students, then one of my opinions might be that the breach of this professional standard of care was a proximate cause of student injury.

Next in line are the policies of the school, summer camp, daycare or other agency responsible for the care of children. In most cases, these policies mirror federal and state statutes and regulations, but sometimes they go beyond them. When the school develops its policies, those policies become part of the professional standard of care as expressed by that school, and the school can be held to compliance with them. In addition, other standards may apply, information contained in parent and staff handbooks. The school must comply with the standards in these documents if it is to demonstrate that it met the professional standard of care.

In some situations, beyond school policy, there may be unpublished standards — “unwritten rules” — that have been developed over time by the school administration. This component becomes another layer of standards and often is difficult to address because it is considered custom and practice within a single school or agency. It becomes difficult to argue against or to defend because in some cases these customs may run counter to professional standards of care. For example, a principal has developed a policy that, when a student misbehaves in the cafeteria, she brings that student to her office to sit out the lunch time. During the time the student is in the principal’s office the principal talks with the student about his behavior. The principal has done this for three years and there has never been a question. This became an unwritten rule, an unpublished standard and practice beyond school policy. However, official policy requires the principal to complete a referral form for the school counselor and the counselor is expected to meet with the student. On one occasion, after several disciplinary issues occurring in the cafeteria, and meeting with the principal in her office, this student attacked a classmate at the end of the school day. A thorough review of the school policies will include the standard developed by the principal which, in this case, was contradictory to official school policy. Although counseling this student in the principal’s office might be shown to have been somewhat reasonable, counseling with the school counselor as per written school policy might have avoided the aggressive behavior and prevented student injury.

 

Professional Standard and School Liability

The appropriate and acceptable standard of care is demonstrated when a person, such as the supervisor of a child, acted reasonably and prudently in a specific circumstance. Failing to act reasonably and prudently may be a proximate cause of student injury. Compliance with standards alone does not entitle the school to summary judgment. Some standards are not adequate for specific situations. Customary usage and practice of the industry is relevant for determining whether a standard had been met. However, such usage cannot be determinative of the standard (Marietta v. Cliffs Ridge, 385 Mic. 364, 189 N.W. 2d 208 [1971]). On the other hand, if a school failed to comply with standards, it makes evidence of improper care easier to show. For example, the required student-to-teacher ratio in a preschool program of three-year-olds is one adult to five children. A school did meet that standard but a student was injured when he ran into the corner of a table when the teacher wasn’t paying attention. Just because the school complied with the teacher-to-student ratio does not entitle it to summary judgment. Often this is argued but other relevant circumstances must be assessed such as the attention of the teachers. If the school had one teacher supervising ten students when an injury occurred, this is clearly a breach of the standard and likely will be a contributing factor to the injury of the child.

Failure to follow some standards may not be related to student injury or loss; there must be proximate cause. In some situations, the level of care promulgated by the standard may not be necessary for providing a safe environment; the standard may go beyond a minimum requirement. The reasonable and prudent professional standard is, therefore, added to the pyramid of standards of care. This standard can be assessed only by a person who is qualified through education, training and professional experience to render such an opinion.
Professional standards are the foundation for determining liability when a child is injured or killed while under the care of a school, camp daycare center, or other agency entrusted with child safety. The many layers of standards, whether these standards were followed, whether actions were appropriate under the circumstances, and whether an action or lack of action was a proximate cause of injury or death weave a complex web in any determination of liability.

Student Injury Liability and Emergency Response in Schools for Children with Medical Conditions

Pediatrician doctor bandaging child's leg. Mother holding baby in her hands. Close-up.

Schools have a duty to know about a child’s critical health condition to prevent student injury.

Many school-aged children have medical conditions about which teachers, nurses, and others who are responsible for their health, safety, and well-being should know. If not addressed in the right way by administrators, teachers, or other officials, these conditions can result in a catastrophic incident, student injury and not to mention costly litigation. A student with a known heart defect, for instance, is vulnerable in a physical education class if the teacher is not informed of the child’s condition and does not institute appropriate precautions or prepared to respond in a medical emergency. If cafeteria personnel in a daycare center know that a child has a peanut allergy but fail to supervise the child appropriately, the child can go into shock if she is allowed to sit at a table where another student is eating peanut butter. In situations like these, if a plan for the child’s care was either not in place or developed but not communicated to the staff, the child might suffer irreparable harm — or even die.

Schools (and this is applicable as well to other agencies responsible for supervising children, such as daycare centers and summer camps) have a duty to know about a child’s critical health condition. Having this knowledge requires them to develop adequate plans for the child’s daily routines and allows all appropriate staff to plan for a quick and effective response to an emergency when necessary. Armed with as much information about the child as possible, the school can protect itself from liability by being aware of foreseeable harm to a child in specific situations — be they in class, on the playground, or on a class trip — and by instructing staff about a child’s special supervisory needs.

 

Duty to know, plan, inform, and execute a plan to prevent student injury

A school has a professional duty to collect as much health information about the children in its care as possible. Typically, before a child is admitted, parents complete a health form soliciting information about any chronic illnesses, allergies, or other conditions that the staff should know. The plan that is eventually developed for addressing the special health needs of a child is only as good as the information provided by the parent. In some situations, a parent might not provide full information that might be critical for protecting the child’s safety and health. If sections of the form are left blank, it is the school’s responsibility to follow up and ask for it to be completed in full. This is both necessary for the child to get the full benefit of his education, and critical so that staff may be informed of specific considerations that can mean the difference between life and death of a child and prevent possible student injury.

Some students have a sustained or temporary medical condition that interferes with their ability to fully benefit from their educational program. For example, a student who recently had knee-replacement surgery will not immediately be able to climb the steps to get to her science class. This temporary disability requires a Section 504 plan, which differs from an Individualized Education Plan in that it does not involve special education services. Required as part of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a Section 504 plan is commonly instituted to provide accommodations for students who have a broken leg or other acute conditions, or who are undergoing disabling treatments, such as chemotherapy, on a limited-time basis. For the student who underwent knee surgery, a 504 plan could indicate, for instance, that she is allowed to use an elevator that is off limits to others to be able to get to her science class. This plan is developed with the parent, the student, and the school nurse or others as appropriate, depending on the condition. School staff should be informed of the plan, and its implementation should be monitored on a regular basis.

If the school fails to develop such a plan or fails to assure that it is fully implemented, it could be liable for further injury to the child. In a similar case in which I was engaged as the child-safety expert witness, the plaintiff sued for damages based on the school’s failure to implement the plan. The elevator was not working on several days, forcing the student to climb the steps to the second floor. One day, she fell and re-injured her knee. Once there is recognition of the need for an accommodation, the school is obligated to assure it is available and, as in this case, that equipment is fully functioning.

 

Caring for children with special healthcare needs

In the journal Pediatrics (102:137–140), McPherson et al define children with special healthcare needs as “those who have or are at increased risk for a chronic physical, developmental, behavioral, or emotional condition and who also require health and related services of a type or amount beyond that required by children generally.” Special healthcare needs can include asthma, diabetes, cerebral palsy, bleeding disorders, metabolic problems, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell disease, seizure disorder, sensory disorders, autism, severe allergy, immune deficiencies, or many other conditions. Some require daily treatments, while others require only observation for signs of impending illness and the ability of caregivers to respond in a timely manner.

As with acute conditions, a collaborative approach involving parents, the child’s healthcare provider, teachers, and the school nurse is important for protecting the child’s health, safety, and well-being and to protect the school from liability. Development of a healthcare plan that includes critical background information about the child and his special healthcare needs, how all staff will be informed about the need, and how staff will be trained to respond to an emergency will help to protect the child from harm and the school from potential liability.

 

When is a school or child care agency held liable?

In many cases for which I have been engaged as the school liability expert witness, I have found that the school or childcare facility had no knowledge of a special healthcare need, nor was there a care plan in place. In one case, for instance, the parent of a child who died after running two miles in physical education class failed to inform the school of the child’s chronic heart condition. This condition restricted him from such activity. Without this information, the school was correct in treating the student like every other sixth grader, including him in the activities of the physical education class.

In some other cases, the school had a plan but it wasn’t adequate, wasn’t monitored, and the staff was unaware of the information in it — placing a child at risk of a life-threatening event or death. In one such case, a fourth- and fifth-grade physical education teacher instructed her students to go onto the field, run three laps amounting to approximately a mile, and return to the gym. One of the girls who ran the laps then entered the gym, walked halfway across the floor, and collapsed. It turned out that at the beginning of the school year, the parent completed a standard medical form noting that her daughter had a heart condition, was under the care of a pediatric cardiologist, and was restricted from sustained exertion — but the nurse simply filed this information away in her office. The nurse failed to alert any teachers — including the physical education teacher, in whose course the student would most likely encounter difficulty. The physical education teacher, in my opinion, was not at fault because she had no notice of the girl’s health problem and restrictions. Expecting the children to run the course was reasonable and was included in the course outline, and she had no reason to exempt this child. However, it was also my opinion that the school breached the professional standard of care when the nurse, having notice of the student’s chronic medical condition and restrictions, failed to inform the teachers, especially the physical education teacher. Unfortunately, the student did not recover, and the school withstood protracted wrongful-death litigation.

 

Implementing a plan to avoid life-threatening events

Any child who meets the criteria for having special healthcare needs and who presents an increased risk for a serious health event or death should have a routine- and emergent-care plan completed by their primary care provider. It is important that the assessment of the primary care provider include significant physical findings so that caregivers and teachers can develop a plan. An emergency-management plan also should list activities or services that are restricted or that differ from those typical of most children, and it should include specific instructions on how to provide medications, procedures, or implement modifications or emergent care. If these instructions are not clear and if the school requires further information, it is appropriate to ask the parent for permission to consult with the medical provider to ensure that the student receives proper care.

Every school employee, including teachers, bus drivers, cafeteria staff, custodians, and others, should be informed about the special healthcare needs of every child in the facility. One person, preferably the nurse or another designated person, should serve as the funnel for this information and as the person responsible for the development of a healthcare plan, training of staff, and follow-up with parents and the child’s healthcare provider. The staff nurse has a professional duty to understand the unique health issues of a child, transmit that information to all staff, monitor the child’s health, and ensure that any equipment that may have to be used in an emergency situation involving this child is accessible, working, and can be used by others if necessary to save a child’s life.

Often this fails to happen, as in the case of a high school student who collapsed in gym class. The teacher sent another student to the nurse’s office to let her know what happened. The nurse arrived and reached for a defibrillator that was buried in a supply closet, still in the original box it was shipped in. She brought it to the gym only to discover that the battery was not charged and the device was useless. The student died because he was not treated in time. The school and nurse were sued for gross negligence. As the expert witness in this case, it was my opinion that the school administration breached the professional standard of care when it failed to assure that the defibrillator was operable and not locked in an inaccessible area. By failing to make the defibrillator accessible and in proper working order, the nurse acted in deliberate disregard for the health, safety, and well-being of the children in her care, including this child.

To reach an opinion as to whether a school met the professional standard of care, my review and analysis answers, among other questions, whether it acted appropriately and reasonably under the circumstances. These circumstances are always unique to each case and include whether the agency had a duty to develop and implement certain policies and procedures imposed by the state or licensing or accrediting authority. If, for instance, the school had a duty to develop a policy requiring health care screenings of all incoming students but the school failed to have such a policy in place, then it breached that duty and failed to adhere to the professional standard of care. Whether this failure proves to be a substantial cause of injury, health episode, or death is considered in light of the totality of the circumstances. Other standards that I examine include hiring, training, and informing competent staff; maintaining emergency equipment; and updating emergency contact information. If it can be demonstrated that there was a failure to act within the professional standard of care with regard to these and other specifics — and that failure is a proximate cause for serious injury, health episode, or death — the school or agency may be held liable.

On the other hand, my review might reveal that the school or other child care agency did everything to protect the health, safety and well-being of children: It hired competent staff, obtained critical health information about the child, maintained its emergency equipment, and otherwise fulfilled the professional standard of care — but a specific child’s medical condition was not made known by the child’s parent or physician, preventing the school from acting on that information. In cases such as these, when the child suffered a catastrophic event, the school may not be held liable.

 

Conclusion
Protecting the health, safety, and well-being of children entrusted to the care of staff in schools, daycare centers, camps, and other facilities falls within the professional standard of care for such agencies. How they implement this standard and whether they act appropriately and reasonably under specific circumstances determines liability. When an agency knows of the special healthcare needs of a child, develops a plan to address the need, informs staff of the issue, provides an emergency plan of action, maintains its emergency equipment, and takes any other steps necessary to protect the child, it will have met its professional standard of care. Without taking these steps, the school or agency may be held liable for a child’s injury, catastrophic health episode or death. If the agency had no knowledge of, or reasonably could not have known, of a child’s special healthcare needs, then the agency is unlikely to be held liable.

Assessment of Liability: Child Abuse and Injury in Residential Care

Residential School LiabilityIn my profession as an education administration and student supervision expert, I have observed that residential schools and boarding schools present a higher duty than day schools to supervise children and a greater opportunity for the school to be found liable for child abuse and injury. When children are living and learning in a program 24/7, staff must demonstrate not only a professional standard of care, but also a reasonable and prudent parent standard of care. Although related, these standards are distinct and must be appropriately and reasonably applied in a setting where staff serves as surrogate parents and others serve as teachers, counselors, and psychologists. When a child is sexually assaulted, administered unnecessary corporal punishment, or is injured or dies in a residential school, both of these standards need to be addressed.

Residential programs, particularly in large institutional settings, carry inherent risks to children, including the number of staff in positions of authority who interact with children, development of institutional norms that may be different from those in the broader community, and a tendency toward closed communication systems where information is kept within the institution. In the field of education administration and supervision, certain standards guide the care and protection of children in order to prevent child abuse and provide adequate care. These standards are greater than those of a reasonable parent or the general public to ensure that risks involved in the care and education of children are appropriately assessed and are inclusive of ways to address those risks. Within this framework, it is essential to develop appropriate policies, regulations, and procedures that ensure that standards of behavior follow applicable state and federal laws and to carry them out. At a minimum, policies, regulations, and procedures should ensure that:

  • Students know what constitutes unacceptable behavior and how to recognize it
  • Policies and procedures for reporting mistreatment and child abuse are established and made known to students, parents, and staff, and that parents can feel confident that complaints will be addressed appropriately
  • Students and parents participate in the development and review of a plan of care
  • Staff selection, supervision, and training ensures that staff has the knowledge and skills necessary to care for students and meet their needs
  • Accountability processes are in place to monitor whether students’ care needs are being met and that policies and procedures are implemented
  • Student care practices are consistent with established standards and policies
  • Students regularly participate in community activities and that community members are involved in school activities

Reasonable and prudent parent standard

California’s Welfare and Institutions Code (sections 362.04 and 362.05) defines the “reasonable and prudent parent standard” as careful and sensible parental decisions that maintain the child’s health, safety, and best interests. The goal of the reasonable and prudent parent standard is to:

  • Provide the youth with a “normal” life experience in out-of-home care
  • Empower the out-of-home caregiver to encourage youth to engage in extracurricular activities that promote child well-being
  • Allow for reasonable parenting decisions to be made by the out-of-home caregiver without waiting to obtain approval from a social worker or institution
  • Remove barriers to recruitment and retention of high-quality foster caregivers
  • Reduce the need for social workers to either give permission or obtain Juvenile Court approval for reasonable caregiving activities
  • Respect the rights of youth in out-of-home care

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration on Children, Youth, and Families uses a similar definition of the standard, while adding recognition of the need to “encourage the child’s emotional and developmental growth.”

While there are many definitions for what would be considered a reasonable and prudent parent standard, the general concept is that parents are often — if not daily — faced with decisions about their children’s care that involve judgment. Parents who are both reasonable and prudent will make decisions carefully, weighing the benefits and potential risks to come to a sensible decision that is in the best interest of the child.

Professionals who care for children in their custody have a duty to meet the same standard, but also have a higher duty to meet the standards of a reasonable professional. The reasonable professional standard of care includes ethical or legal responsibility to exercise the level of care, diligence, and skill prescribed in the code of practice of his or her profession.

The professional standard of care with regard to the supervision of children in both day schools and residential and boarding schools is that staff act appropriately and reasonably under the circumstance to protect children from harm, that the school develop and implement policies to implement and oversee supervision, and that the staff be appropriately hired, supervised, and trained.

Standard of care for residential and boarding schools

Both the reasonable and prudent parent standard and the professional standard of care are applicable in residential and boarding school settings.

When an institution is established by a government, or when a boarding school program is established by a private board or an individual, the government or board should assure that, at the very minimum, the reasonable and prudent parent standard is met and that adequate programs, services, and student supervision are in place to maintain and protect their health, safety, and well-being. The professional standard includes every aspect of the reasonable and prudent parent standard in addition to ensuring that an adequate infrastructure is established to operate a residential or boarding school. Infrastructure means developing and implementing policies, procedures, and regulations that address such activities as: hiring, supervision, retention and training of staff; staff discipline; development of programs and services for students according to their needs; student supervision and discipline; administration; human resource planning; development and implementation of training and investigation of complaints; and follow-up on issues that can cause foreseeable harm to students. This infrastructure enables a residential or boarding school to meet both the reasonable and prudent parent standard and the professional standard of care.

When applying the reasonable and prudent parent standard, schools and other institutions that care for and supervise children have a greater responsibility than parents. For example, a parent of a child with multiple disabilities living at home requires certain necessities, such as adequate shelter, nutrition, health care, a safe environment, a caregiver while parents are working, and other services that provide for the child’s adequate supervision and protection. Before these necessities can be provided, certain family systems that allow for such care to be provided must be in place. These systems include income for providing a home, food and clothing, and adult collaboration. Here, in addition to the systems necessary to meet the reasonable and prudent parent standard, the professional standard of care is added. This standard is defined by the level of care, diligence, and skill prescribed in the code of practice for the profession; by the person’s education, training, and professional experience; and by how other professionals in the same discipline would behave in the same or similar circumstances.

Residential and boarding school personnel act in loco parentis to educate and care for children who are not living at home. As such, these institutions should meet the reasonable and prudent parent standard and, because professionals are responsible for students in the residences, the professional standard of care applies as well. Based on my professional experience, identifying children with specific disabilities who are not able to receive adequate services at home with their parents or in their local school, and placing them in a location where professionals with specialized education and training are more able to provide necessary care and education, is the standard of care.

Expert role in assessing standards of care

As an education administration and student supervision expert witness, I am called to assess and analyze whether applicable standards of care were met in lawsuits involving injury, death, child abuse or sexual abuse of students attending residential school programs. To make that analysis, I conduct an extensive review of documents, including policies and procedures for hiring and supervision of staff and supervision of children in residential and boarding schools.

In the case of child abuse, sexual abuse, death, or serious injury, it must be determined whether the agency, through its administration and/or other employees, acted within the reasonable and prudent standard of care and within the professional standard of care. Policies and procedures must be reflective of the nature of children in general and, specifically, the nature of children attending the residential or boarding school. For example, if the facility educates and provides psychological assistance to children who are chronic sex offenders, it makes sense that the school develop and implement policies that address staff training in the prevention, identification, and reporting of sexual abuse. Such a facility would also be expected to have and enforce policies that provide a high level of line-of-sight and close supervision of children during the day and, especially, during such less-supervised times as evening and bedtime. If a child is sexually abused in a residential center that does not develop and implement appropriate policies that consider the nature of children in its care, that facility might be found negligent.

Many times, I find during a case review that the residential or boarding school failed to develop policies and supervise or appropriately train its staff — creating a situation where students with a propensity for disruptive behavior or sexual acting out are able to do so. When a student in a residential or boarding school is known to be overly interested in sexual matters or has inappropriately acted on those interests, this requires staff to consider a higher level of supervision for that student than typically provided to others in the facility. This is because there is a certain level of foreseeability that the student’s sexual acting out may place other students in danger of harm. When an agency has notice of a child’s propensities but fails to adequately inform and train staff and provide appropriate supervision, this is a breach of the professional standard of care that may place the health, safety, and well-being of children at risk. Failure to develop and implement appropriate policies and supervisory systems may be a proximate cause of harm to a child, resulting in costly litigation.

Real case examples

In many cases I have examined, schools have made claims to suggest that they are sensitive to the needs of vulnerable youth they serve, and that these children’s needs will be addressed in a way that protects their health, safety, and well-being. A boarding school in Vermont that advertised that, for more than 30 years, it had worked with boys who face dyslexia and related language-based learning challenges. Approximately 50 students from grades 6 through 12 who attend this school during the day live on campus. A residential school in New York had 12 cottages for housing “at-risk” boys between the ages of 6 and 20. Each cottage housed between 9 and 16 students. This school stated that it is staffed 24/7 with professionals experienced in helping children deal with anger, feelings of loss, and educational failure. According to the information packets of both schools, an important part of life is that the schools offer a structure that helps residents feel safe. Another boarding school for teens who are in trouble with the law or having substance abuse issues offered year-round enrollment for girls and boys ages 13-17. A military, special-needs boarding school in Canada that enrolled 125 students offered specialized programs for children in grades 6 to 12. And a sport-oriented boarding school in Canada stated that it’s important for their student-athletes to have parent-like advisors while living away from home.

The accommodations promoted by each of these schools suggest that they have the infrastructure to meet both the reasonable and prudent parent standard and the professional standard of care. In cases involving some of these facilities, however, it was my professional opinion that breaches in these standards contributed to student injury and/or constituted child abuse.

In a residential program for troubled boys, a student crawled out a window to a flat roof and attempted to jump across a gap to another roof. He fell 20 feet, resulting in serious injury. In a boarding school for girls, a staff member caught two girls kissing but didn’t investigate, interview them, or recommend counseling. A few weeks later, the aggressor raped her target. In another school, an older boy left his room, crossed the hallway, and entered the room of another student. He proceeded to sexually abuse the student while staff was to be posted in the hall to check rooms every 15 minutes. My review of this case revealed that staff was not present as they were supposed to be.
When a child is abused, injured, sexually abused, or dies under the supervision of staff at a residential or boarding school, the review is focused on two standards: the reasonable and prudent parent standard — because children in these settings are in a substitute home with substitute “parents” — and the professional standard of care required of educated and trained professionals in these settings. Although day schools must meet the professional standard of care, the reasonable and prudent parent standard is not typically applied in these settings. Children in day schools must be supervised according to the professional standard of care under the circumstance, whereas children who live at a residential or boarding school must also be supervised to the reasonable and prudent parent standard.

Liability in Child Injury Cases at Non-School Programs

Personal Child InjuryIn settings where children are supervised by adults, we often think about traditional settings, such as schools and summer camps. But these are not the only places where children participate in activities that require adult supervision and which can result in child injury cases. Some nontraditional settings include resort and vacation day care programs, community recreation centers, church-sponsored events, and Boy and Girl Scout activities, among others.

In these and other nontraditional settings, when children are involved and adult supervision is required, the organization has a duty to protect the children. Breach of that duty may extend beyond inadequate supervision or lack of supervision; staff and volunteers must be appropriately trained, and rules and regulations must be considered. If a plaintiff can show that poor supervision, inadequate training, or a lack of rules and regulations is a proximate cause of a child’s injury, the organization may be liable for child injury cases.

Importance of Training and Supervision Standards in Child Injury Cases

Schools and summer camps hire certified and trained employees, and they generally provide additional staff training in supervisory methods related to the age of the children and the activities in which they participate. Schools and camps also have formal child supervision policies and procedures, and they evaluate staff on their supervisory performance. Beyond schools and camps, however, many organizations with supervisory responsibilities for children are often much less rigorous in their methods.

Most frequently, these organizations do not have written policies and don’t provide training on how to keep kids safe from harm. Few provide adequate staff training and child supervision. These are often the elements that plaintiff will address in a lawsuit claiming negligence. Regardless of the organization, once it sponsors an activity involving children, it is responsible for their safety, which is incrementally enhanced with the level of appropriate training and supervision. In child injury cases in programmatic situations, approximately 80 percent of plaintiffs’ allegations involve negligent supervision.

Volunteers become an integral part of the work of most not-for-profit organizations and often fill a gap when paid employees are not available. At many organizations that provide services for children, volunteers conduct countless tasks. Churches often see themselves as “families” and sometimes may overlook the importance of training or supervisory functions of Sunday school teachers or of parents who organize and conduct activities such as Friday evening scavenger hunt. But all volunteers need adequate training.

For these organizations, external resources are available. GuideOne Insurance, for instance, offers SafeChurch training programs that provide church workers and volunteers important knowledge about potentially significant safety risks. These programs cover facility safety, transportation safeguards, and other categories. The company also provides informational resources about child abuse prevention, daycare and nursery safety, and playground safety.

To protect themselves from potential liability in child injury cases, many churches and other volunteer organizations have policies addressing the hiring of paid staff and the engagement of volunteers who work with and supervise children. For example, the Archdiocese of Baltimore requires each volunteer who has substantial contact with children at a parish or school to complete an application. Three references are provided, checked, and documented. A criminal history screening is conducted, and the volunteer must participate in training about child abuse and the protection of children. The archdiocese uses a compliance management system to track completion of these requirements.

Cruise ships offer an example of a nontraditional supervisory setting involving paid employees. Many cruise lines offer programs that provide young passengers an opportunity to explore art, play games, and to get acquainted with other children. Holland America Line, for instance, offers children’s programs during the day so that their parents can be on their own for a period of time. Most programming is during sea days, with late-night group babysitting available on some ships for a fee. On Carnival Cruise Lines, Camp Carnival is a fleetwide program for children who are 2 to 11 years old. Carnival also offers separate programs for children aged 12–14 and those 15–17.

These programs and others such as dance studios, karate centers, gym daycares, township recreational programs etc. are essentially the same in terms of duty as those provided in school and by other organizations, and the people responsible for children in their care have a duty to supervise them appropriately in order to protect them from harm. Cruise lines that offer youth programs generally accept all children who are potty-trained and meet the minimum age requirements, without knowing anything more about the child or his or her history of behavior. What parents don’t typically realize is that the cruise line can be held liable for child injury when supervision of these children is negligent.

Parents have a “contract” with caregivers and teachers to supervise and protect their children. In a child injury case for which I was engaged as the child supervision expert witness, a parent left his 7-year-old son in an afternoon program on a cruise ship, where about two dozen other children ranging in age from 7 to 10 participated in arts and crafts projects, a sing-a-long, snack time, and a nap. During nap time, when children were lying on mats on the floor and covered with light blankets, a 10-year-old moved over to the 7-year-old and sexually assaulted him. Testimony from other children in the room was that the person who was to have been supervising stepped out on deck to talk with another ship employee, leaving the children unsupervised for several minutes.

Determining duty was not an issue. Because the parent entered into a “contract” with the supervisor, and essentially the cruise line, that his child would be safe, the cruise line had a duty to protect. That duty required that a responsible adult be present to oversee the children during nap time and to intervene if any behavior on the part of a child might cause injury to another child. The program did have a policy that during nap time, floor mats were to be kept at least 18 inches from each other. This policy was practical, but it did not prevent a child from sexually abusing another. The only thing that would have prevented this was diligent supervision by a competent adult employee. Because the supervisor was not in the room for a significant amount of time, the opportunity arose for the 10-year-old to sexually assault the younger child.

Negligent supervision of children or lack of training for adults — be they paid staff or volunteers — may not necessarily create liability for an organization if a child is injured physically, is sexually assaulted, or dies while in the care of an organization. In child injury cases plaintiff must show that inadequate supervision or training is the proximate cause of the incident. The competence and training of the person supervising, the location of the supervisor at the time of injury, and the number of supervisors on duty are key elements in determining liability. The age and abilities of the child and the foreseeable dangers in the location of an activity are additional factors when determining liability.

Importance of Adequate Policies and Procedures in Child Injury Cases

As with schools, daycare centers, and summer camps, nontraditional organizations must consider policies and regulations when children are involved and supervised by adults. There are rules that may be developed into written policies made by the organization’s governing body; rules that are operational in nature, made by administrative and supervisory personnel; those that are considered ministerial acts for which there usually is liability; and rules of a specific activity that the children are engaged in, such as baseball, karate, or even crossing the street as a group. At this level, the supervisor or the person in charge of the conduct of the activity is required to see that the rules are followed.

The overriding assumption is that rules are developed to provide for the safety and protection of children, and that if they are not enforced, there is a greater possibility that a child will become injured during the activity. However, while there may be a duty to establish rules and regulations — either by statute or by virtue of a potentially dangerous situation — the mere fact that there were no rules or regulations is not negligence per se in child injury cases. As with lack of supervision, lack of rules and regulations must be the proximate cause of the injury.

One of the key responsibilities of supervision in any child-centered organization is to identify dangerous conditions or activities and then either warn of the condition or stop the activity. The supervisor must take appropriate action — and possibly create the rules on the spot — for the protection of the children. Duty to warn contemplates opportunity to know of danger (actual or constructive notice) and to have time to communicate it. Two children colliding while running on the playground may not rise to the level of negligent supervision in a summer camp because it’s not unusual for 6- and 7-year olds to run during recess on the playground. This would not be considered a dangerous condition or activity for which the counselor would need to warn or stop. On the other hand, when children are throwing rocks at each other, the supervisor has a duty to end the behavior and to warn children of the danger that someone can become seriously hurt. Then, the supervisor needs to keep diligent watch over the children and the area to ensure that the activity doesn’t reoccur. A supervisor should also prevent children from using defective equipment that would cause an activity to become dangerous. This might include a hazardous condition on the playground, unsteady gymnastic equipment, or a karate mat that has lost its padding.

Conclusion

The standard of care owed to children who participate in organization-sponsored activities must be consistent with legal standards and the standards of a reasonable person under the circumstances. In order to fulfill their mandate to see to the safety of children, nontraditional agencies that provide services for children need to know the requirements for reasonable and prudent operations. Anticipating dangers and correcting for them by warning participants and eliminating the dangers will help to protect children from harm. Training supervisors to keep an eye on children at all times and to anticipate that children don’t always act the way one might expect — they might run into the street or throw a rock at another child, for instance — will help protect children and the organization.

The standards by which nontraditional organizations operate are not always clear-cut. The methodical and systematized practice of safety education within the agency until all employees and volunteers are thoroughly educated and habitually perform their functions with safety as the uppermost concern will go a long way toward protecting children from harm and protecting the organization from costly litigation for child injury cases.

School Premises Liability: Maintaining School Grounds to Keep Students Safe

Keeping children safe in schools, preschool and daycare programs, summer camps, on playgrounds, and other locations is a primary responsibility of those who administer such programs. When a child becomes injured and the claim is negligent supervision, a school or other agency will have a greater chance of prevailing when it has clear policies and enforces them. In school premises liability lawsuits plaintiffs are more likely to prevail when a facility fails to maintain its campus and equipment, does not have a regular inspection plan, and does not instruct and supervise students in the safe and appropriate use of equipment. The greatest deterrent to litigation with respect to premises and equipment liability is to keep the building and grounds free from hazards, maintain them on a regular basis, and ensure that that equipment is safe and properly installed, used, and maintained.

School Policies and School Premises Liability

In-house policies become the standard by which schools and other agencies assure the health, safety, and wellbeing of children. These policies mirror professional standards of care in the field as well as federal, state, and local standards. Development and implementation of policies that address circumstances that may give rise to a child’s injury are important components of a defense against school premises liability. Equally important, these policies should be enforced.

For example, electronic equipment in a classroom is often plugged into power strips. Young children are curious. They like to explore how things work. Children have been shocked when a staff member did not cover unused outlets on a strip. Even if the administration has no knowledge of a teacher using a power strip, a policy prohibiting their use without the express permission of the administration gives the administration control. If a teacher ignores the policy, uses a power strip in the classroom, and a child is injured by it, the school might argue that it had the appropriate policy but the teacher failed to follow it.

The existence of a policy alone, and even communicating it to staff, however, might not be enough to persuade a jury that the school had done all it could to prevent injury. The plaintiff might be able to demonstrate that the policy stated that regular inspections would take place during the school year but, in this case, none were completed. The question might then arise: Had inspections been conducted as required by policy, and had the power strip been removed from the classroom in an inspection, would the child have been injured? Having a written policy without enforcing it will not strengthen a defendant’s position.

Maintaining School Grounds to Avoid School Premises Liability Lawsuits

When a child is injured after falling 10 feet from a playground slide to the unpadded ground below, the injured party may claim that the school or camp failed to maintain safe premises or breached a safety standard. Did the school allow the play area to become unsafe by not replacing a shock-absorbing surface that washed away over time? This is an example of a maintenance issue that required attention, lead to an injury and left the school vulnerable to potential school premises liability lawsuits. Defective equipment and unsafe premises cause untold litigation expenses in the United States and Canada.

When children are involved, a majority of defective-equipment allegations involve playground equipment. In a case of a 4-year-old who badly mangled his finger on a merry-go-round (Fetters v. City of Des Moines), the plaintiff alleged that the merry-go-round was defective because of improper maintenance. In another case involving negligent maintenance (Rich v. City of Goldsboro), the plaintiff was thrown from a see-saw that was worn and wobbly and that lacked handholds or stabilizing devices. In fact, nearly every time a plaintiff’s allegation of defective equipment prevails, the proximate cause is failure to adequately maintain equipment.

An inspection system is the most important component of maintaining safe premises and for managing risk. Inspections play an important role in the discovery of conditions, and “notice” is an important legal concept regarding liability for conditions of premises. Notice is information — knowledge of the existence of a situation. For example, if the head custodian learned of a missing end cap on a slide, then he or she is held to have notice of the condition.

Whenever children are around equipment of any kind — a slide on the playground, a table saw in shop class, folding tables in a cafeteria, or a pair of scissors in art class — teachers, camp counselors, and program administrators, as well as custodians and bus drivers, have a duty to ensure that equipment is always in top condition, maintained regularly, or taken out of service when in need of repair. A teacher’s job description may include a requirement to inspect and maintain equipment in the classroom on a regular basis. This requirement becomes a professional standard of care in that school — and one that can be referred to in litigation.

In a real case involving a student and a table saw, the woodshop teacher knew that a bolt was missing from the saw blade guard. Rather than referring to the manufacturer’s requirements for a replacement, he rooted through a drawer in the shop, found a bolt he assumed would hold the guard to the saw table, and replaced it. Later, when a student was using the saw, the bolt came loose, the guard jammed, and the student lost three fingers. After thousands of dollars’ worth of surgery, the student filed a lawsuit against the school and the teacher.

Did the teacher adhere to the professional standard of care? Or was the standard breached when he failed to maintain the saw, as required by his job description? Did he breach the professional standard of care when he used a bolt not approved by the manufacturer? In this situation, the teacher ignored the standard outlined in his job description and deliberately used a bolt not recommended by the manufacturer. The saw should have been taken out of service until it was properly repaired. If this school premises liability case had not settled, the school would have had to persuade a jury that even though the saw was not maintained properly and the teacher used the wrong bolt, the student was at fault. It’s unlikely a jury would have agreed.

Negligent Supervision of Students

Folding cafeteria tables that are improperly stowed, TVs atop carts incapable of supporting them, and chemicals left in reach of students all place children in harm’s way, with the foreseeability that someone could become injured. Staff must constantly supervise the premises and the use of equipment. Knowing what to be aware of in environments inhabited by children and how to safeguard children in those environments are among most important responsibilities of adults who are ultimately responsible for children’s safety.

When a potentially dangerous situation is identified, there are several alternatives:

  • Discontinue the activity. Do not allow activity in an area where children would be exposed to the danger
  • Modify the activity. Adjust the manner of play to avoid contact with the defect
  • Temporarily repair the defect and continue the activity with care. For example, a hole in a floorboard might have a temporary covering in order to protect students from injury on the spot. This may be fine in the moment, as long as students are carefully supervised, but after the activity is over, the temporary floor covering should not be left in place and considered a “fix.” Once a supervisor or administrator has notice of the hole and the temporary fix action to correct the hazard must be taken. Inaction is itself an act that can enhance the likelihood of injury for which the person is personally liable.

The court has established two types of torts: manufacture of defective products and the use of products. With respect to the latter, a suit can be brought on negligence if the user of a product is injured, regardless of whether the product has been associated with liability claims. Consider a TV cart that had been labeled dangerous by the Consumer Product Safety Commission: Its design caused it to tip over easily, but no product liability claims had been filed against the manufacturer. In one real case, a third-grade teacher instructed two students to return a TV on top of this cart to a hall closet. Being third graders, one child pushed the cart from the back while the other rode up front, placing his feet on the bottom shelf and holding onto both sides. When the child pushing the cart let go of it, the cart tipped in the direction of the student hanging off the front and the 55-pound TV struck the other student in front in the head, causing permanent injury.

A claim of negligent supervision was filed against the teacher, the principal, and the board of education. The question became: Was it appropriate and reasonable for the teacher to send the two boys, unsupervised, into the hallway to return the TV? Information the teacher knew about one of the students became another factor in this case: The boy had behavior problems and been corrected on numerous occasions. Did the teacher breach a professional standard of care by sending these students, one of whom she knew was likely to misbehave in the hallway, to take the TV to the closet?

When children are engaged in activities under supervision, the school or other agency has the responsibility for ensuring that equipment is appropriate for the child’s age, size, skill level, and general capacity, as well as how it will be used. There is also a duty to instruct the child in its proper use and dangers of misuse, and to monitor for proper use. The person instructing the child must also be alert to defective equipment. The school district has the authority to purchase and furnish equipment, but teachers have the responsibility for proper selection, inspection, and use of equipment. Legally, this is important, because if equipment is used for a purpose not in accord with its instruction, product liability is not at issue. Moreover, an injured child does not assume any risks if the equipment used is defective or improper for the activity. An improper type of jump rope, for instance, was alleged to be the cause of injury in a physical education class when an 8-year-old was injured. The 6-foot rope had wooden handles, one of which hit a student in the teeth when it was jerked from a teacher’s hand. In this case, the defendant prevailed.

Conclusion

Schools, their administration, and staff, along with adults who administer preschools daycare centers, summer camps, and similar programs have a responsibility to protect children in their care from harm in order to avoid school premises liability lawsuits and negligent supervision of students claims. Policies that set standards for ensuring safety and maintaining the building, grounds, and equipment are a start, but those policies must be enforced and students appropriately supervised during activities, especially ones including specific equipment. Negligent maintenance and failure to supervise children in the proper use of equipment are common reasons policies fail and can lead to conditions that give rise to student injury and school liability lawsuits. School and agencies should take every reasonable step to avoid these potentially costly traps.

Applying and Piercing Governmental Immunity in School Liability Cases

Governmental Immunity in School Liability CasesWhen a student personal injury in a public school triggers litigation, plaintiff and defendant attorneys must address the concept of governmental immunity. In general, governmental immunity shields public schools from tort litigation and liability. Governmental immunity is not universally applicable, however, depending on how the facts of a specific case accord with state or provincial laws. This article is about how governmental immunity in public school cases might be pierced and how schools can determine whether governmental immunity applies in school liability cases.

 

In the United States, state laws vary considerably on the question of governmental immunity for tort liability. Common law has driven legislative initiatives, often in response to a trending issue, that strengthen or erode governmental immunity protection. In Canada, by contrast, tort liability of the government is relatively new and is statute-based. In Canada, the Crown Liability Act leaves the “Crown” liable in tort as an individual would be.

 

Variation in U.S. laws results in differing levels of school immunity from state to state. Eleven states[1] allow suits regarding nondiscretionary functions only; 39 states, including the District of Columbia, provide for discretionary action as an exception to the general rule of liability. Some states protect schools from liability for the tort of negligent hiring or retention of staff. Some permit suits only for personal injury or death or only for dangerous property conditions. A few states generally allow tort suits against teachers only for “willful and wanton” misconduct. Some states limit dollar amounts that may be collected.

School Liability Immunity in the context of Discretionary Judgment and Dangerous Conditions

Governmental immunity is the most frequent defense in tort cases. Before considering whether governmental immunity applies, the questions of school liability — such as duty of care, breach of duty, and proximate causation — should be addressed. Attorneys should carefully review and analyze the circumstances surrounding student injury leading to a tort claim. Consider two examples: a teacher who tutors a student alone in her classroom with the door closed and a teacher who continues to use equipment that has been recalled for safety reasons. The immediate relevant questions in both examples are: Did the school have actual notice, or should it have known, of a situation that a reasonable school administrator would agree could place a student in harm’s way? Under the circumstances, did the school act reasonably, appropriately, and within the professional standard of care to protect students from harm?

In the first example, if the school maintains a policy that no teacher is allowed to be alone with a student in a classroom, yet it is known that the teacher is tutoring a student one-on-one in her classroom behind a closed door, did the administrator follow up by correcting the teacher and noting the violation in her personnel file? In the second example, did the school continue to use a table saw with a missing blade guard, or did the teacher take it out of use and arrange for its repair? Ignoring red flags may lead to the potential for student sexual abuse in the first example and serious student personal injury in the second. In some states, governmental immunity may not apply to these examples.

Because negligent acts are often the result of discretionary judgment on the part of a school, the question of whether an act (or failure to act) was discretionary is of major importance in states granting school immunity for discretionary acts. Discretionary acts in school setting generally involve planning, goal setting, evaluation, and the exercise of judgment.

As an example, federal and state laws require schools to identify students with disabilities and engage in a process that leads to the development of an Individualized Education Program (IEP). An IEP is a written document that specifies “contractual” agreements about services to be provided to the student. For a student with a physical disability, one such provision might be an aide to help the student safely negotiate school hallways and protect her from injury on the playground. In one case, the aide did not show up for work on a day the student attempted to negotiate a crowded stairway. She fell and sustained an injury, causing permanent scarring to her face from lacerations. She sued the school, claiming negligent student supervision. The school invoked immunity, saying the act of providing the aide was discretionary. Determining whether this truly was a discretionary act, however, is the key as to whether immunity applies in this type of case.

As a school administration expert witness, when I review and analyze a case like this, I determine the professional standard of care under the circumstances and whether the school, through its administration and/or other employees, acted reasonably, appropriately, and met that standard. Was the requirement for an aide to assist the student reasonable and appropriate? The school had determined that the aide was necessary for the student to have safe access to her education. Does this place a nondiscretionary component into the analysis? If there is no discretion or flexibility when it comes to providing the aide, and on this day no aide was there, did the school breach a mandatory standard — perhaps removing the protection of governmental immunity?

In another example, a principal allegedly knew that a music teacher had sexually abused a student in an after-school program. Instead of taking appropriate action by reporting the incident to child protective services and separating the teacher from students, the principal simply transferred the teacher to another school. At the new school, the teacher continued his behavior with a different student until it was reported to police. It may be argued that the proximate cause of the second student’s sexual abuse was the principal’s gross negligence in his decision making.

In a state that allows level of negligence to determine whether governmental immunity can be invoked, the plaintiff may prevail. However, if there was no knowledge of the teacher’s behavior before his transfer, then the school would have had no duty to protect students from harm and would likely prevail under the doctrine of governmental immunity.

 

School Immunity and Premises Liability

A proximate cause of student injury in schools may be failure on the part of the administration or other employees who are charged with a ministerial duty. In contrast to discretionary acts, a ministerial duty is a responsibility to conform to federal, state, or local statutes or to policies and procedures a school has set. Determining the elements of a policy and enacting the policy may be discretionary acts, while the responsibility to carry them out is a ministerial school duty.

If a student is injured by equipment that violates safety standards or is not maintained according to the manufacturer’s specifications, courts must decide whether the general legislative policy of promoting student safety should prevail by imposing tort liability, or whether the doctrine of immunizing the school from exposure to tort suits should prevail. Many courts favor public policy governing safety and impose liability on school districts, thus piercing governmental immunity.

Some jurisdictions recognize claims of failure to keep school premises in a safe condition, permitting recovery from schools for maintaining a nuisance. Maintaining a nuisance seems to be recognized as an exception to the general rule of immunity. Some courts have determined that if school officials mismanage school property, they are liable for damages because of that mismanagement.

As an example, in the corner of a third-grade classroom, a teacher set up a “reading lounge.” During afternoon reading time, six children crowded into the area to see the new books the teacher put out. Three students sat together on a desk that collapsed, seriously injuring a child. The teacher knew the desk was broken and had reported it to the custodian, expecting that it would be taken from her room for repair. Yet she did not prevent students from continuing to use it, leading to injury. Did the school have a duty to take the desk out of service, foreseeing that a student could become injured if it remained in the classroom? If it can be shown the teacher acted grossly negligent by failing to assure the desk was repaired and that this was the proximate cause of the student’s injury, then in some states this may be considered “maintaining a nuisance” and the school may not be shielded by governmental immunity.

Playground injuries are often addressed in the context of governmental immunity. In one example, the playground in a school for students with disabilities was fenced. The latch on the fence gate had been broken for weeks, and though this had been reported to the principal when it first broke, no action was taken to repair it. A student left the playground through the defective gate, running into the street and being struck by a car resulting in a wrongful death claim. This school may not be able to stand behind governmental immunity if it can be successfully argued that the school had a ministerial duty to assure the gate operated correctly to protect students from harm. On the other hand, if the attorney for the school convinces a trier of fact that installing a fence with a gate in that location and repairing the gate is discretionary, the school may prevail.

Even if the school argues that these activities are discretionary, an expert witness working on a case like this would review and analyze issues, policies, and actions that may have been a proximate cause of injury to a student. As an example, if I were to render an opinion that, because of the level of disability students at this school, the administration had a higher-than-average duty to protect them from harm — coupled with the facts that the school board conducted a safety audit of the grounds, identified the necessity of a fence and gate to protect student safety, and enacted a well-understood policy that the gate remain closed when students are on the playground but the gate latch went unrepaired for weeks — I would likely determine that failure to repair the latch in a timely manner was neither reasonable nor a discretionary act, and therefore governmental immunity would not be applicable and school liability for student wrongful death would stand. The inoperable gate created a situation that otherwise would not have existed. By applying my experience and qualifications, I assess duty to protect, whether the school’s action or inaction was reasonable and appropriate, and whether it was a proximate cause of injury or death. A careful review and analysis of the facts from the perspective of a reasonable school administrator will help to determine if the school’s actions or inactions led to injury.

 

Summary

Because it varies significantly by state and its provision is influenced by individual circumstances, governmental immunity is something of an elusive standard. Assessing a public school’s duty to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of its students and determining how well it fulfilled or failed to fulfill that duty from the perspective of a reasonable school administrator provides the starting point for determining whether school immunity will prevail. This determination and analysis of applications of governmental immunity can either be used as a school defense against liability, or as a way of piercing governmental immunity by plaintiffs.

[1] Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, and New Mexico do not address discretionary actions as potential exceptions to governmental immunity in school liability cases.

Child Injury and Daycare Negligence: Liability Expert’s Analysis

Daycare Negligence Expert

Daycare accidents and injuries are preventable with proper supervision, regular inspections and adequate training.

Millions of children participate in programs operated by daycare centers, nursery schools, and camps across the United States and Canada. The most important aspect of childcare is the safety and supervision of children. When a teacher, recreation leader, camp counselor, or other supervisor is engaged in activities involving young children, there is a duty to protect the child from physical harm, sexual abuse, and other forms of personal injury. A breach of duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of a child that leads to injury may result in daycare negligence lawsuits.

As an example, just before naptime a 4-year-old in a nursery school found a small button-shaped battery. Before dozing off on the cot, the child put the battery in his nose. A few days later, his mother noticed a discharge from his nose and thought he had a cold. After the boy complained of facial pain, she took him to a doctor. The battery was discovered lodged in his nose, leaking toxic chemicals. The battery caused serious burns and injuries, requiring extensive medical care.

Child Supervision and Daycare Negligence

Parents who leave children in the care of professionals trust them to make the decisions necessary to protect their children. This is reasonable, and every parent expects their children to be as healthy when they pick them up at the end of the day as when they left them there in the morning. Daycare programs, nursery schools, and camps, then, must exercise the highest degree of protection with children under their supervision. This includes taking adequate precautions to prevent all reasonable dangers; failure to do so can leave these programs liable for injuries to children in their care — and thousands of dollars in settlement or litigation costs.

These programs, however, are not “insurers of children’s safety.” The law requires those in charge to follow a standard of care that is appropriate for the age of the children under supervision and the particular circumstances. This duty does not require individual supervision of each child at all times. If a child sustains a serious injury while under the care of a daycare, nursery school, or camp provider, courts typically apply a duty/risk analysis to determine whether the provider met the applicable standard of care. This analysis takes into consideration the age of the child and the activity in which an injury was sustained, and then considers the program’s duty of supervision against the risk of injury. The standard of care forms the basis of reasonable actions for maintaining the health, safety, and welfare of children engaged in a specific activity.

While states and courts vary on examples of reasonable dangers in daycare centers, nurseries, and camps, the general rule is: Identify risks associated with operating a program and supervising children, and correct for those risks. This includes the risk that toys may become unsafe with use or neglect. Staff should also check for such dangers as electrical hazards, sharp objects, and unprotected holes in the playground surface. It is important to note that reasonable dangers are those that the staff can control. A facility inspection will reveal many of these potential dangers. In addition to physical risks, staff supervision should be a consideration. Does the facility provide the required ratio of appropriately trained supervisors to children? Compliance with this standard can reduce the potential for liability and claims of negligent supervision of students and staff.

In addition, the question of whether injury to a child was foreseeable is often addressed in litigation and argued by plaintiff and defendant attorneys in such cases. For example, if the director of a daycare center conducts a safety inspection and discovers the slide on the playground is not securely fastened to the ground, causing it to sway when children use it, is foreseeable by any reasonable person that a child could be injured when playing on it. Once the program director knows of a hazard, that person has a duty to correct the hazard and to guard the children from injury until it is corrected. In this example, a daycare administrator knew of the defect and reported it to the maintenance department but failed to warn of the danger by restricting children from using the slide and did not follow up to ensure that the maintenance department repaired the slide in a timely manner. The following week, when three children climbed the steps of the slide, it fell over, seriously injuring one child. This injury was foreseeable and the daycare center could not defend its inaction, which was judged to be a proximate cause of injury to the child.

Courts are less likely to hold daycare centers, nursery schools, and camps liable for injuries resulting from normal childhood play. For example, if a nursery school maintains the correct level of supervision and two children are running while engaged in play typical for their age, collide, and one is injured, the facility is unlikely to be held liable. This is considered typical child play that presents possible physical injury, a normal part of childhood interaction.

A child finding a loose battery on the floor of a nursery school and inserting it in his nose is not typical child play. When a facility provides equipment and supplies, including electronic books and toys, the agency has a duty to reasonably assure that children will use these items in a way that does not present a risk of harm. Program administrators have a duty to check consumer warnings and recalls on equipment. Following manufacturer recommendations and training staff on appropriate use of equipment is insurance against misuse that might cause injury to a child. A facility can reasonably protect a child from harm by regularly inspecting its equipment and placing any unsafe item out of commission. In this case, there was no inspection of the battery-operated electronic books, even though a staff member was aware that the battery compartments were compromised on several books. Lack of attention to this detail cost the daycare center substantial litigation costs and a large settlement.

Daycare Accidents and Negligent Supervision and Training of Staff

Other types of accidents can be prevented and daycare negligence claims avoided with proper staff training and with appropriately developed and implemented policies and procedures. For example, children in an afterschool daycare program in a school cafeteria were running when one ran into a 300-pound, fold-up cafeteria table left in the middle of the room. The table fell over, crushing the head of another student. In this situation, the person in charge failed to make even a cursory assessment of any dangerous conditions present. Any reasonable person would agree that injury is foreseeable if there is a non-stationary fold-up table in the middle of a room where children are running. This example illustrates the importance of staff training, policies, and procedures and regular inspections for hazards to ensure children’s safety. The procedure of the school custodian was clearly outlined in her job description: After lunch, fold up the tables, move them to the wall, and secure them in their proper location. The school had an adequate policy and the procedure was written.

Questions remained, however: Was the custodian adequately trained? Also, was the person appropriately supervised to ensure that she was meeting the requirements of her job description? The custodian saw or should have seen the table in the middle of the room. She should have moved it and secured it to the wall but didn’t. Additionally, the teacher saw the table in the play area but did not warn the students — and even encouraged them to play around an obviously dangerous item that was not supposed to be there. The custodian and the teacher both saw the table but deliberately ignored the foreseeability of student injury.

Sometimes, accidents and child injury are unavoidable even when daycare centers, summer camps, and schools follow all of the rules. For example, a child in a summer preschool program was accidentally struck in the eye with a stick, causing serious permanent injury, despite the presence of an appropriate number of counselors who were trained and carefully supervising the children. Because this center acted reasonably and appropriately with regard to staff hiring, training, and child supervision, it had a strong defense against liability.

Beyond accidents and environmental hazards, claims against a staff member of sexual or physical abuse or neglect, student-on-student sexual abuse, and even wrongful death are not always the fault of the program. A strong defense can be made when the agency practices appropriate supervisory techniques, develops and implements good policies and procedures, trains and supervises staff, and follows up on any foreseeable hazards and safety concerns. These steps include regular background checks for employees and volunteers, making sure that facilities are properly secured so that children can’t leave the premises, child–staff ratios, keeping up with state licensing requirements, training staff on how to report child abuse and neglect, and inviting outside agencies and professionals to conduct trainings and safety-and-risk assessments. Various online resources can provide daycare and camp administrators in the United States with additional information on local, state or national standards and guidance on health and safety requirements. The Canadian Child Care Federation also provides numerous guidelines and resources for childcare providers.

Conclusion

The standard for daycare centers, nursery schools, and camps is higher than one would expect of parents who supervise children at home or at a playground, and courts have continuously upheld supervision and safety as the primary intent of such facilities. The standard of care is measured by the judgment, knowledge, experience, perception of risk, and skill that a person in a professional capacity would have, and this standard must be comparable to best professional practices. Did the nursery school administration in the battery example take reasonable precautions to prevent injury? Did the administration of the day camp take reasonable precautions so that a child would not be injured with a stick? Although it is reasonable for parents to demand a safe environment for their children while at a nursery school, daycare center, or camp, courts recognize that it is impossible for caretakers to prevent every possible injury. On the other hand, those responsible for the safety of children must demonstrate that they acted appropriately, reasonably, and within the professional standard of care if they are to avoid liability and costly lawsuits.