November 21, 2017

School Safety and Security: Responding to Terroristic Threats

student secuirty

In the wake of recent incidences of gun violence, school safety and security has become an increasingly pressing concern in the United States and Canada. Schools, summer camps, daycare centers, and other agencies charged with the safety of children have a duty to protect them, and their ability to do so depends on solid policies, training, and appropriate response to security threats. Laws, regulations, and internal policies designed to shield children from harm may be developed proactively in response to a risk assessment or reactively in response to an event that caused injury to a child. Both are valid options in today’s climate of terroristic threats to school safety and security. Inaction is not. Schools and other child-centered programs must consider and develop appropriate responses to this new dynamic.

Schools generally respond to terroristic threats quickly and decisively, but examples suggest that, at times, responses might not be sufficient based on the level of risk to school safety and security. In December 2015 — two weeks after 14 people were murdered nearby in a San Bernardino, Calif. center for people with developmental disabilities — the Los Angeles Unified School District responded to an e-mail threat to students by closing more than 1,000 schools for a day. At about the same time, New York City officials acknowledged having received a similar threat, but considered it so “outlandish” that they dismissed it as a hoax. As it turned out, nothing did occur in L.A. and the students were safe. New York City Police Commissioner William Bratton accused his Los Angeles counterparts of overreacting, but the question remains: What if the threat had been credible and the school had failed to act?

The incidences in New York and Los Angeles are not isolated to large American cities. In November 2015, authorities in Canada — a country that prides itself on its low crime rate — reacted to the latest in a rash of e-mailed threats by closing 71 schools in Quebec and Ottawa. Nothing was found in any of those searches, either. “Notwithstanding the fact that these threats seem to be unfounded, they are taken very seriously by police and will be the subject of an investigation,” police in Quebec said.

Taking action in response to these threats, which met the provincial definition of a terrorist act, is the right thing to do. Ignoring or making light of any terroristic threat places students and teachers at risk.

 

Appropriate Response to School Safety and Security Threats

The standard of professional care and legal standards for determining what constitutes a credible threat are contradictory and confusing. Until the U.S. Supreme Court defines a common standard, various contradictory lower court opinions will persist. With no clear standard of what constitutes a credible threat to school safety and security or how a school or other agency should respond to one, personnel must take all terroristic threats or suspected threats seriously.

States and provinces have definitions of what constitutes a terroristic threat, and these definitions may fit in the context of schools as well. For example, Pennsylvania law defines a terroristic threat as a threat to commit violence with intent to terrorize another person, to cause evacuation of a building, or to cause serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard for the risk of doing so. In the school context, a warning of a mass shooting that prompts a school evacuation and disrupts education constitutes a terroristic threat under Pennsylvania law, and in response, action can be taken against the perpetrator.

In addition to state and provincial laws, other resources provide guidance for schools:

  • In its 1999 report, “The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective,” the FBI’s Critical Incident Response Group recommended that schools adopt threat-response policies based on three tiers: low-level threats carrying a minimal risk; medium-level threats, which could possibly be carried out but are not entirely realistic; and high-level threats that pose a serious and imminent danger. The report provides guidance for categorizing threats into each tier.
  • A 2004 report by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Secret Service, “The Final Report and Findings of the Safe Schools Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of Attacks in the United States,” suggests that there are productive actions that educators and others can pursue in response to the problem of targeted school violence and terrorism.
  • Another 2004 publication from the Department of Education and Secret Service, “Threat Assessment in Schools: A Guide to Managing Threatening Situations and to Creating Safe School Climates,” builds on the previous report. It sets forth a process, known as threat assessment, for managing students who may pose a threat.

The latter two reports stress that school shootings are rarely impulsive acts. The shooters told other students (though not the victims) about their plans in advance of their actions, but the other students did not tell adults. Telling others constituted a terroristic threat, but in many cases the students who knew of the threat failed to act. They did not report the threat to a school official who might have been able to intervene to prevent the compromise to school safety and security.

Perhaps these students did not know how to respond. Schools should provide training to staff, students, and parents and incorporate a definition of terroristic threat in the student code of conduct, the school security policy, and information that goes home to parents. Information from the school should clearly specify how a student, staff member, or someone from the community is to report threat information to a school official and how the official should respond. A good example is the policy of the School District of Philadelphia regarding terroristic threats. After defining a terroristic threat, Philadelphia’s policy states that:

  • Staff members and students shall be made aware of their responsibility for informing the building principal about any knowledge relevant to a possible or actual terroristic threat.
  • The building principal shall immediately call 911 and follow the district’s crisis plan after receiving a report of such a threat.
  • The principal shall react promptly to this information and knowledge, in compliance with state laws, regulations, and procedures established with local law enforcement.

 

School Safety and Security Threats Require Swift and Decisive Action

Sometimes there is no obvious threat, yet a terroristic act takes place. Depending on circumstances, the school might not be held responsible. For example, in a case in which I was engaged as the expert witness, a woman came through the front door of an elementary school with what she said was her nephew’s lunch in a brown bag. She asked the school secretary if she could take it to her nephew’s classroom. The secretary, who knew the woman, agreed. The woman went to the first-grade classroom, walked through the door, and greeted the teacher, “Good morning, Ms. Miller.” She then reached into the “lunch” bag, pulled out a revolver, and shot and killed the teacher in front of 24 children. Is it necessary to search every person who comes into a school, is known by staff, is the parent or aunt of a student, and who says she is there to bring a forgotten lunch to a child?

The answer is, “No.” In this case, it was my opinion that the school acted appropriately and reasonably under the circumstances. In this suburban community, there was no undue concern about a threat to the safety of the children in the school from outside sources. There was no announcement of a terroristic threat — the person entering the school did not say she was there to shoot a teacher. The secretary did not see a weapon, and she had no reason to believe the woman meant any harm. The woman was “screened” when she came into the school — she was known, she showed her license, signed in, and stated what was determined to be a legitimate reason for being there. Should the secretary have called the student to the office to pick up his “lunch?” Should the secretary have taken the “lunch” to the student? She would have noticed that the bag was too heavy for a peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich. But these thoughts come to mind after a tragedy like this. Can we do better in some situations? Yes, but this school, in my opinion, did nothing wrong. This terrible tragedy was sparked by a neighborhood spat. It is unfortunate that it ended with devastating consequences for 24 children.

There may be other, more obvious, situations that call to task the decision making of school personnel. One such example occurred in Texas, when a man approached a greeter in the school hallway and told her: “I am a gunman. My target is inside of the building. I’m going in the building. You stop me.” The principal did not call 911 because the man was immediately recognized as a parent and school volunteer. It appeared as if he had no weapon, and the school simply asked the man to leave. He did.

After this incident — which occurred less than a year after the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School — some parents felt that the school should have treated it more seriously. Though the man told police he was testing the school’s security response, he was later charged with making terroristic threats. The charge was appropriate, but was the school’s response reasonable? Even though the greeter at the front door recognized the man as a parent and trusted him, could he have carried out his threat? Yes, he could have. The duty of the school is to protect the students. Whenever there is any terroristic threat or reasonable suspicion of a threat, the school must act swiftly and decisively.

Closing school and depriving students of a day or so of their education, if it assures their safety, is worth the effort and is appropriate. Not having a clear policy, failing to train staff, and not addressing terroristic threats that might place students and staff in harm’s way can result in injury or death — and costly civil litigation from the harmed party. The best practice is always to place the protection of children and the wider school community at the top of the list. After all, learning can’t take place if children and staff don’t feel safe.
Schools should review state and provincial laws, agreements with law enforcement agencies, and other resources. Review existing school or program policies and procedures for responding to a terroristic threat. Inform and train students and staff about both the policy and what constitutes a terroristic threat, and if one occurs, carry out procedures decisively. Treating seriously any potentially deadly threat to a school or its inhabitants and involving the authorities without debating its credibility is the best course of action in regards to school safety and security.

School Liability for Student Field Trip Injuries or Death

field trip injuries

Adequate supervision is essential for prevention of field trip injuries.

For schools, summer camps, and day care centers, one of the key functions of student supervision is to identify dangerous conditions and then either stop the activity or warn of the danger. The supervisor must take appropriate action for the protection of the children. Duty to warn contemplates both having knowledge of danger (actual or constructive notice) and having time to communicate it.  Field trip injuries are very common and there is an equal duty to protect when children are off campus but still under school supervision, such as when children are on a school-sponsored trip. Excursions off school property present special challenges. Careful planning ahead of the trip, knowing about potential safety hazards, and creating a plan to avoid or mitigate them can help to protect a child from field trip injuries and a school from liability lawsuits.

The best defense against a claim of negligence is that has one or more of the four elements of negligence has not been proven: that a duty was not owed the injured, that reasonable care was exercised in performance of the act, that the act was not the proximate cause of the injury, or that there was no injury to the plaintiff. There will be times that the school will have done everything appropriate but a child still is injured. If the school can show that it exercised reasonable care, it will go a long way toward protecting the school from a lawsuit.

 

Adequate Planning is Essential  to Minimizing Risk of Field Trip Injuries

Being alert to potentially dangerous conditions at an offsite activity starts long before the activity itself. If a trip is planned for a picnic at a local park, for instance, the teacher or administrator should visit the park ahead of time to learn the layout and identify potential dangers on the property that may lead to field trip injuries. Are there any streams a child can fall into? Are there rough trails with loose rocks and tree trunks that can cause a child to trip? Is there a highway nearby that poses a risk to a child who wanders off from the group?

Informing the chaperones and children of the terrain, the hazards, and the safety rules ahead of time is most important. In providing written rules for the children, parents, and chaperones, a school articulates its policy and the behavior it expects from adult and child participants in order to protect students from field trip injuries. Through this type of planning and communication, the school creates a foundation for protecting it from liability should something go wrong.

It also is important to ensure that there are enough adults to provide adequate supervision at the event. In thinking about how many adults are needed, consider how many children will attend, their ages, and whether they have any disabilities or behavioral issues requiring special attention. A higher duty of care exists for a student with a disability or when a child’s Individual Education Program (IEP) requires specific attention to details to keep the student safe.  If a student requires a one-on-one aide at school for additional supervision, the same requirement extends for fieldtrips and other activities to minimize risk of field trip injuries.

 

Negligent Supervision of Students on School Field Trips

One of the cardinal rules of supervision on school field trips is to ensure that children do not leave sight of chaperones. The question of liability for injuries when children leave adult supervision without permission presents two factors. First, was there negligence in supervision on site that permitted the child to leave? If so, then that breach of duty would be the proximate cause of the injury. Second, was that type of injury foreseeable? If so, then failure to supervise a child in a way that could have prevented the injury would be negligence. For the school to be held open to liability, there must be proof that lack of supervision or that negligent supervision was a proximate cause of the accident.

Individuals who perform supervisory functions must conduct themselves as a reasonable person would under similar circumstances. Inappropriate behavior on the part of the supervisor may lead not only to a negligence suit in the case of student field trip injuries or death, but also to disciplinary action against the supervisor. As an example, in a Missouri case, two coaches took six high school boys and four female cheerleaders to a meet, where they stayed overnight. Evidence indicated that the coaches left the students unsupervised and the coaches attended a party and drank alcoholic beverages, and had allowed male and female students to sleep in the same rooms. The coaches were found to have engaged in inappropriate conduct when they abandoned the students and went partying and drinking. The court found that this behavior rendered them unfit to teach or supervise students.

Special attention must be given to the planning of off-campus trips with young children. In one such case, a kindergarten teacher planned a “safety day” class trip to a city-owned parking lot. The teacher planned this event in the same way she had for years, following board of education policies and seeking parent volunteers. Parents and children met at the school and rode with the teacher on a bus to the event. Just before arrival at the event, the teacher addressed the chaperones and said, “Please keep an eye on the children. We don’t want anyone to get lost.” What she did not do — and this turned out to be the proximate cause of a student’s death — was to assign specific students to each volunteer in order to prevent the risk of student field trip injuries.

At the event, the fire company brought a fire truck, the rescue squad brought an ambulance, and the police department set up “roads” with stop signs and walkways for children to practice safe street crossing. The police brought several electric golf carts to use as “cars” to make the scene as realistic as possible. After police officers finished conducting their demonstration of safe street crossing, three children climbed onto a golf cart, one hanging onto the front of the cart. An officer had left the cart idling, key still in the ignition. The cart drove straight ahead into the ambulance, crushing and instantly killing the child hanging on the front. Because several entities were involved in the event — the school, teacher, principal, volunteer chaperones, the police and fire departments, the EMT staff, and the municipal government that provided the parking lot, assignment of liability would likely be shared. The school, however, through the teacher who organized the event, was ultimately responsible for acting within the professional standard of care for supervision of children. Had chaperones been directed to supervise specific students at all times, it is likely that when the students climbed onto the golf cart, their chaperones would have stopped them.

Cases involving class trips can become quite complex when several agencies are involved. In a drowning case, a school had selected students to attend a leadership training program off campus. The school rented a nearby YMCA campsite that had several buildings suitable for overnight guests. There was also a third agency, the company providing the training program.

In this case, several students left the dormitory in the middle of the night, went to a nearby riverbank and took several boats into the river, even though signs strictly prohibited anyone from going into the water. When several students drowned, each of the three entities and many individuals became defendants. Sorting out supervisory responsibilities between the school, the training agency and the YMCA, assessing the capacity of the students to watch out for their own safety, and many additional elements became important when determining foreseeability, responsibility for supervision, proximate cause, and liability. In this case, proximate causation was determined through an assessment of whether the students’ misconduct would likely have been prevented had the duty to supervise been discharged.

 

Contributory Negligence for Student Field Trip Injuries

Questions of liability may arise from any number of unforeseen situations. Who bears the burden of liability when a student on a daytrip rents a bicycle, fails to wear a helmet, and sustains a head injury when he runs into a tree? What is the school’s liability if a child runs ahead of her group onto a highway, only to be seriously injured by a passing car? When a child’s own actions contribute in whole or part to wrongful death or serious injury, such circumstances can be a defense in certain situations.

As a court stated, a determination of contributory negligence involves several considerations:

  • Characteristics of the child (e.g., age, intelligence, experience, knowledge, or physical condition) that would influence her ability to detect dangerous conditions or appreciate the danger of a hazard observed
  • Physical facts, i.e., the extent to which the hazard is noticeable and the degree of alertness required to avoid such a hazard
  • The environment, be it the physical activities of the individual who was injured or killed or the movement, sound, or placement of other persons and objects in the setting.

For example, in the river drowning case described earlier, the question of contributory negligence was raised because the students who drowned were 17 and 18 years old, were determined to be intelligent because they had been selected for leadership training, were physically fit, and had the ability to detect the dangerous conditions of the river. A sign prohibiting swimming was clearly visible to a reasonable person, and there were no distractions at the scene that would have caused either of the students to lose concentration or momentarily forget that entering the river presented a danger of harm.

 

Summary

Supervision of children on the premises of a school, camp, or other entity is essential for protecting the health, safety and well-being of participants. Supervision of children at school-sponsored trips presents unique challenges and must be addressed in a different way. This is especially true when a group is planning to go to a place that is unfamiliar and may present challenges and dangers not typically considered.

Start with a clear, strong policy requiring administrative approval and a plan for the trip that includes safety and emergency responses. Consider how many children will attend, their ages, and how many adults are needed to supervise the children and protect them from harm. If the area is unfamiliar, the person in charge should visit in advance, making note of potential hazards and developing a plan to protect children from those hazards. Chaperones must know as much as possible about where the group is going, the potential hazards, who the children are and whether any have a particular disability, behavior problem or other characteristic requiring special attention, and which children are under their responsibility during the trip.

As an expert witness providing services for plaintiff and defendant attorneys on issues of negligent supervision and liability, I review the policies of schools and other entities and compare them against the facts of the case. This process provides insight as to whether the entity met its own standards by following its policies and whether contributory negligence was involved, leading us toward answers about questions of liability. When the facts are clear, an opinion may be rendered as to whether the entity acted appropriately and reasonably under the circumstances and within the professional standard of care.

School Safety and Security: Tips for Assessing Liability in School Violence Lawsuits

School Violence Lawsuits

Students and their parents have an expectation that schools will keep them safe from harm.

The uncertainties surrounding the Massachusetts teacher murder of Colleen Ritzer last month and the death of student Kendrick Johnson in Georgia earlier this year illustrate how the unexpected can occur and school safety and security is a serious concern schools administrators are faced with on a daily basis. Schools have a duty to protect students, and students and their parents have an expectation that schools will keep them safe from harm. In the school context, appropriate supervision compels a school to take proactive steps to provide a reasonably safe environment. The school is not expected to supervise every activity of its students every minute of their day, but when it has knowledge of circumstances that may pose an unusual safety risk, administrators are obligated to go beyond mandates to develop and implement standards of care that create a reasonable environment of safety. In this article, we will explore this idea through a couple of case studies.

Each school’s unique setting and student environment play a role in the development of appropriate policies and procedures designed to protect students’ safety. If, for instance, an urban school is located in a high-crime area with gang activity, the administrator has a duty to observe and assess the milieu and to develop a plan for keeping students safe. These procedures may include assigning school resource officers on each floor of the building, training staff in gang-related issues, or installing a metal detector at the door. If the school determines a metal detector necessary, then it has a duty to train staff in its use and maintenance.

Twenty miles away in a leafy suburban town, another school exists. Here, there is no gang activity, the crime rate is low, and an assault on a student or staff member has never occurred. In this context, a metal detector isn’t likely to be necessary, but — as with most schools around the country — the administrator will develop procedures to screen visitors. These procedures will likely require locked doors, a surveillance camera at the front door, and a buzzer. Under the procedures, the person screening the visitor may be required to ask specific questions, such as the person’s name and the purpose of the visit. Once a legitimate reason for the visit is established, the door is unlocked.

But even in a seemingly safe environment — with all the protection of armed officers, metal detectors, policies and procedures, and locked doors — a student or teacher can be seriously injured or, worse, murdered as recently happened in Massachusetts teacher murder.  In some cases, it’s easy to see where a school failed to pay attention to obvious dangers. In our urban school, an out-of-repair metal detector failed to pick up a weapon smuggled in by a teenager intent on killing a student in a rival gang. In other cases, it is more challenging to determine where or whether failure occurred. In our suburban school, a woman known to the screener said she was there to bring her nephew the lunch he left at home. After being buzzed in, the woman walked to a first grade classroom, pulled a revolver from a lunch bag, and killed the teacher in front of the students.

School’s Duty to Protect Students

At the school in the first example above, there was a recognized need for a metal detector at the entrance because of known gang activity and a past history of on-campus violence. The school made a decision to install a metal detector to protect students. Once that decision was made, it could be viewed as an admission that interventions are needed to curtail dangerous behavior. Therefore, the school also took on a responsibility to ensure that the metal detector was always working properly. If the metal detector failed and a student entered the school with a weapon and injured or murdered another student, then the school may face a lawsuit for neglect.

In the example of the second school, the administration determined that it needed only a front-door check-in system, based on its assessment of the environment around the building’s location. There had never been an assault in or around the school, so the risk of harm was deemed to be low. As with the urban school’s decision to use a metal detector, this school chose to implement a safety policy — this one requiring front-door screening. Once in place, that policy must be enforced, regardless of who is at the door.

Schools develop and implement safety plans to protect their students. Both schools in our example consciously took steps to do this. And yet, at both, someone was murdered.

An attorney’s Approach to Litigation Cases Involving Schools Safety and Security

Attorneys are advocates for their clients. In the case of the murdered gang member, the plaintiff attorney will argue that the school breached its duty to protect her client from harm, and this failure was a proximate and direct cause of her client’s death. A staff member was supposed to be on duty but was not. The lighting was less than adequate, failing to meet the local building code; the school hallway was overcrowded; and the metal detector failed. Together, she will contend, these were a recipe for disaster.

The defendant attorney, on the other hand, will argue that the incident would have occurred even if a staff member was in close proximity because the murder happened quickly and without warning. He will also admit that the lighting failed to meet the standard, but will add that it was adequate and even with better lighting the incident could have happened. As to the alleged overcrowding, the defendant attorney will argue that this had nothing to do with the incident and that, because of budgetary issues, the school was operating double sessions. Metal detectors and other security systems fail, but was the alleged failure a proximate cause of the incident? After all, the student could have thrown the weapon into the building through an open window and retrieved it after going inside.

Looking at the case of the suburban shooting, the defense attorney will argue that the school determined the level of security necessary to protect the students and implemented a standard of care. She will argue that there was no way the screener could have foreseen that a person known to the school would enter under false pretenses and kill a teacher with whom she had a neighborhood feud. The plaintiff attorney will argue that the school had a duty to conduct a stronger screening at the door, escort the person to the classroom, or call the student to the office.

Assessing Professional Standard of Care in School Violence Cases

In assessing liability, plaintiff and defendant attorneys should first determine whether a school met the professional standard of care under the circumstances. That standard begins with legally mandated requirements and cascades down to school policies and procedures. Professional standards may be required through statutes, ordinances, or regulations; set forth by relevant organizations, such as the National Fire Protection Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Camping Association, National Federation of State High School Associations, or U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission; or constitute the customary professional practice of those conducting such activities or operating such facilities.

An attorney must assess the professional standard of care, the resulting duty, and whether the school met the duty. In this process, both plaintiff and defendant attorney should consider two principles:

1.            Compliance with standards does not necessarily entitle a school to summary judgment. Some standards may not have been adequate for the situation. When there is a known gang rivalry in the area or when a student known to have severe behavior problems is in the hall, having a teacher walk the hall between class periods may meet “compliance” but might not be the most appropriate standard under that circumstance. Appropriate action must be viewed in the school context and with an understanding of specific information about individual students. Customary industry practices are relevant for determining whether a standard has been met, but compliance alone is not determinative of the standard that a specific situation might require.

2.            If a school did not comply with standards, evidence of proper care is much easier to show. Some standards may not be related to the 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.

Foreseeability

In our two examples, can it be demonstrated that the risk of injury or death was foreseeable? To a reasonable administrator, could the murder of a student in a school where gang members roam the halls have been foreseen? Could action have been taken to prevent it? In the suburban school, could the murder of the teacher by a known visitor who was allowed entry to the building via a well-established procedure been foreseen? Could action have been taken to guard against it? School officials’ conduct cannot be considered unreasonable if the risk is unforeseeable.

The test of foreseeability is foresight. The administrator in these and other situations where safety is a concern must, from the circumstances, be able to foresee a danger to the student or teacher that presents an unreasonable risk necessitating protection from harm.

The gang murder case illustrates this point. In this school, it was well known that there was a high level of gang activity in and around the school. Teachers recognized the wearing of colors representing rival gangs and were on heightened awareness of the potential risk of harm to students when disputes erupted between gang members. The school was undergoing a large construction project that forced students to be re-routed through a tunnel between classes. The unusual traffic pattern created by the construction provided less visibility and more crowded conditions, and this, coupled with the gang activity, prompted a decision that a staff member would be assigned to the tunnel for extra supervision. Thus, the school did foresee the potential for danger that presented students with an unreasonable risk of harm.

The standard of care established in this circumstance was that the school was to have a supervisor posted in this location to watch for danger and intervene where necessary. But on the day of the murder, the school breached its own standard of care by not assuring that a supervisor was there. In the unsupervised tunnel, an argument erupted between two rival gang members, a weapon was drawn, and a student was killed.

Looking at the case of the suburban shooting, the school appeared to do everything right. It followed its duty by screening the person — but someone was still murdered. Could it have been foreseen that a personal disagreement involving a staff member and a neighbor would spill over in a classroom full of children? A reasonable school administrator would be unlikely to conclude as much.

Proximate Cause

Before a school can be held liable for alleged negligent conduct, it must be proven that the negligent act caused the injury. Mere occurrence of an incident, like the murders in our examples, does not support an inference that the school was negligent. The plaintiff has the burden to prove that the school was negligent by its action (or failure to act), resulting in injury or death.

Thus, in contrast to the test of foreseeability, the test of proximate cause is hindsight. Would the incident have occurred if the school had acted appropriately and within the professional standard of care in the circumstance?

In our examples, both attorneys can apply the probable consequences rule. According to this rule, the school would be liable if an incident was the natural and probable consequence of one’s negligence. In the urban school, a reasonable administrator might conclude that the school is at fault because it had notice of the danger and set out to protect students by establishing standards, yet failed to meet its standards of care. In the suburban school, the school set out to protect students from danger, put a procedure in place, and followed the procedure and its standard of care — yet the murder still occurred.

Summary

Schools have a duty to keep students out of harm’s way. Most often, they succeed. However, even when protections are implemented, a student or teacher can be seriously injured or murdered. For attorneys, assessing the merit of filing a lawsuit or the strength of a defense hinges on a clear determination of three elements: the professional standard of care; the duty of the school; and whether it was foreseeable that a student or teacher could be hurt or killed if the school breached the standard.

Through this process, it will become easier in some cases to see where a school failed and injury or death resulted. In other situations, it will be evident that the school took every reasonable step despite the occurrence of an injury or death. Analysis of the facts, as seen through the eyes of a reasonable school administrator, can hold the key to whether to file, strongly defend, or settle school liability cases.

Abduction of Students from Schools is Preventable with Proper Safety Procedures

School Safety and Security

Keeping students safe at schools and away from dangers of abduction is schools duty.

Recently another child didn’t make it home at the end of the school day. This time, it was because a substitute teacher at Bryant Elementary School in Philadelphia handed over a 5-year-old to an adult whom school personnel didn’t properly screen.

Posing as the girl’s mother, a woman walked into the school and signed in at the front desk. In violation of school safety protocol, she walked not to the school office but directly to the classroom. There, she told a substitute teacher she had come for the child — and took her out of the building. Several things went wrong here: Because the woman never went to the office, nobody checked her identification. The substitute teacher handed over a child to an adult without finding out who she was or checking with the office.

After a day- and evening-long search for the girl, a sanitation worker found her clad in just a T-shirt — shivering and crying for help but otherwise OK — in a playground at 4:30 the next morning.

How does something like this happen when we have been so sensitized to school safety following the atrocity at Sandy Hook Elementary School? How did this happen in any school, where staff has a duty to protect children from harm? Kids are in danger when adults fail to pay attention and become complacent.

It was a lot easier for the substitute teacher to let the child go with someone he did not know than to contact the office and follow the school’s protocol. Was the person at the sign-in desk distracted — or just unobservant? Why didn’t he or she make sure that the visitor went to the office, where her identification would have been checked?

Having a policy isn’t enough

When it comes to protecting our children, don’t ever take the easy way out. It can lead to tragedy.

In the nearly 100,000 public and 33,000 private schools in the United States, administrators, teachers, and other staff sincerely want to protect children from harm —and, as we saw at Sandy Hook Elementary, some even die protecting their children. Schools establish procedures to protect kids — things like checking the identification of anyone who takes a child out of school; making sure the identification matches an up-to-date list of people approved to take the child; ensuring that the child knows the person; and, if it’s not the parent picking up the child, that the parent knows who’s there and gives permission. But, as with the Philadelphia incident, procedures don’t protect children when adults don’t follow them.

As an education expert witness, I have provided consultation to attorneys around the country on similar cases. In one, a student slipped out of school undetected and drove off in a car, only to get into a serious accident. In another case, a 7-year-old student was allowed to leave the school with a teenage boy she didn’t know. The boy then took the child to a nearby apartment and sexually abused her.

It’s not always possible to keep an eye on every student every moment of the school day. In the case of the student who left the school undetected, it was my opinion after reviewing the issues and documents that the school had proper procedures in place and met the standard of care. The student snuck out. Was the school liable when she got into a car and drove into a tree? No. She planned to leave and deliberately evaded detection. The school did nothing to encourage her to do what she did.

It was something else, though, in the case of the 7-year-old who left school with the teenager she didn’t know. A 14-year-old called an elementary school to say he was coming to pick up his sister because their father had been in an automobile accident. The 7-year-old didn’t have a brother — and the father was safe at work.

The school had a set of steps in place for anyone wishing to take a student out of school early. The protocol required the secretary to check the student file to ensure that the person had the parents’ permission to pick up the child. Next, the secretary is to check for proper identification and, in some situations, contact the parent to verify that their child can leave. None of these things happened, nor did the office staff check out the boy’s story that “their father” had been in an accident. The office staff simply asked the child to report to the office.

When the girl got there, the secretary said, “Your brother is here to pick you up.” Not wanting to alarm her, the secretary didn’t say anything about the father. In a quiet voice, the student said, “I don’t have a brother.” Still, he was allowed to leave with her. The teenager, who knew the girl from the neighborhood, walked her a few blocks to his mother’s apartment, brought her upstairs, and sexually assaulted her. After the assault, he walked the traumatized little girl back to the school, left her at the front door, and walked away.

It’s not difficult for a reasonable person to figure out what went wrong in this situation. So why don’t school officials — who have a special duty to protect our kids — pay attention?

Part of the reason is leadership in the building. It’s fine to have policies. But the principal of a school is responsible for making sure that the staff knows the rules, why they exist, and the consequences for ignoring them or becoming lax in enforcing them. In too many cases involving abductions from schools, I have seen students injured or killed after a school’s good policies were not followed.

It was preventable

Returning to the Philadelphia case — what should have been done? What would have saved this little girl from the trauma she will likely live with for a long time?

Quite simply, the school should have followed its own protocol!

According to a district spokesperson, policy requires anyone taking a student out of school to go to the office and provide identification that matches a list of approved individuals. News reports indicate that the person signed in at the front door using the first name of an individual who was, in fact, on the list. No one, however, verified that this person was whom she claimed to be. That was the first breach of school protocol. The police believe the person was a stranger unknown to the girl.

The person was told to go to the office. But no one could have been watching, because the woman walked right to the girl’s classroom. Another breach of school protocol, did the school, through its staff, act reasonably and meet the standard of care in accordance with customs and practices of the field? No.

This, in my opinion, placed the child in harm’s way and created a situation that otherwise would not have existed had the school followed its own protocol. As a result of these failures, the student was abducted, taken to an unknown location, blindfolded, released, and found crying in a park.

We cannot protect all our children all the time. But it is the duty of schools to foresee that danger can come to children if safety protocols are not followed to the letter. This unfortunate situation is yet another reminder that kids are vulnerable and the adults around them have a responsibility to watch over them.