July 21, 2017

School District Liability: Duty of Care Owed to Students, Visitors, Volunteers, Trespassers and Local Agencies

Whenever children are involved in events on school premises, there is always the possibility of school district liability for incidents that happen on school grounds or at school-sponsored events. This foreseeability gives rise to a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent a child from being harmed. Public school districts may find themselves liable for injury — not only for those suffered by their own students, but also for those incurred by children who are invited onto school grounds, who attend separate programs on school grounds, and even those who are considered trespassers.

School-sponsored events, such as an after-school club, a school dance, or a daycare program run by the school board, are clearly extensions of the school. With these types of programs, the school’s safety and supervisory policies apply. If a person is hurt or is sexually assaulted during a school-sponsored or operated event, it is generally clear that school district liability will attach if there is a finding of negligence.

A school district’s liability for injuries to children on its grounds is far less clear, however, when an outside organization is involved or when an injured party was not authorized to be on campus. Schools sometimes rent or give space to organizations like the Boy Scouts, a community basketball organization, or a private dance school to provide services to the general public, students at the school, or both. Very often, outside organizations cooperate with the school to provide before- and after-school services for the school’s own students, but these programs are not directly operated by the school. Typically, schools have policies that spell out an approval process for the use of their space. However, based on some of the cases for which we have been engaged, these policies do not always go far enough — thus leaving school districts open to liability if a child involved in an activity that is run by an outside organization is injured on school grounds.

 

School District Liability When an Outside Agency or Organization is Involved

For example, one of our cases involved a school that allowed a community athletic association to use its gym. The board of education approved the application and even noted that the organization had liability insurance. One of the volunteers with the athletic association led a participant, who was also a student at the school, to the restroom — where the volunteer sexually assaulted the student. When we reviewed the facts to render an opinion as to whether this school acted within the professional standard of care, it became evident that the athletic association never trained its volunteers in the prevention, detection, and reporting of suspected child abuse. It did not have a plan for supervising its volunteers, nor did it check their backgrounds before allowing them to have contact with the children in their program.

One of the questions that arose in this case was: Did the school have a responsibility to ensure that the other organization had policies in place to reasonably protect the school’s own students from harm?

School district liability and duty of the school to the plaintiff depends upon the relationship between the plaintiff and the school, the relationship between the plaintiff and the other organization, and the relationship between the school and the other organization. Often, these relationships are complicated, and it is necessary to determine which agency had responsibility for the plaintiff’s safety at the time of the incident.

Consider the following examples:

  • A school allows one of its teachers to use the music room after school to provide private lessons. The teacher systematically lures a student into an inappropriate relationship and is accused of sexually abusing him in the school.
  • A person on the school’s grounds when not authorized suffers an injury. Even though this person would be considered a trespasser, the school may be liable under certain circumstances.
  • The parent of an athlete from an opposing wrestling team falls from the bleachers in the high school gym. Which school — if either — had responsibility for his safety?

In any of these scenarios, the school may become a defendant in a lawsuit and argue that it had no responsibility for the safety of the plaintiff.

One of our cases involved an allegation that two students sexually abused a high school girl under the bleachers during a football game. All three students were at the football field to watch the game and were allowed to be there. The plaintiff student had an implied invitation to enter the premises (the football field), and she entered for the purpose of which the invitation was extended (to watch the game). In a situation like this — all parties at a school-sponsored event were authorized to be there — the plaintiff’s attorney would need to show that the school had a duty to the student to take affirmative action to protect her from an unreasonable risk of harm.

While the school is not a guarantor of the student’s safety, it must take an affirmative action in anticipation of foreseeable injury in order to minimize school district liability. The plaintiff must show that the school knew, or should have known, that the dark area under the bleachers amounted to a defective condition, that the risk to the student could be foreseen, and that because of the school’s negligence in not correcting this condition (not illuminating the area), a student could be assaulted in that location. The defendant’s attorney, on the other hand, must show that this area of the bleachers did not constitute a defective condition, that the information known by the school would not give rise to the foreseeability of the plaintiff being sexually assaulted in that location, and that intervening variables served as proximate cause of her injury. An education administration and supervision expert witness would determine whether the school maintained its property in a reasonably safe condition and whether it reasonably supervised its property during the game.

 

Questions That Help to Determine School District Liability and Duty

When attorneys engage our firm’s services to render an opinion as to whether the school bore responsibility in specific circumstances, we review the duty owed to the plaintiff and whether the school acted reasonably, appropriately, and within the professional standard of care. Often, this analysis begins with a determination of whether the plaintiff was authorized to be on the premises (for instance, a student attending class); was invited to be on the premises (for instance, a member of a visiting football team playing a game against the home team); was a licensee by virtue of an agreement with another entity (for instance, an enrollee in a dance school); or whether the person was trespassing. With each of these classifications, a different approach is applied to the analysis of which entity was responsible for protecting the plaintiff from harm and what that responsibility involved.

When developing an opinion in such cases, our expert witness will apply his education, training, and professional experience to answer several questions: Who was the responsible agency? What policies did the agency have in place to protect individuals from harm? Did the agency apply its policies? What training was provided to the staff that was responsible for supervising children, and was the training reasonable? Did the agency meet other required standards, such as those required by licensing agencies? Did the agency vet and supervise individuals who were responsible for the safety of children?
In examining these questions, it can be determined whether the school had a duty to the plaintiff and whether that duty was breached resulting in school district liability.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Contributory Negligence Defense in School Liability Lawsuits

school liability

Contributory Negligence Defense in School Lawusits

Student injury or death often brings negative attention to a school. In fact, the first thing often reported publicly is an injured party’s claim that an incident stemmed from the negligence or misconduct of a staff member responsible for a child’s safety — a teacher, coach, or bus driver, for instance. But a student injury or death can result from any number of situations. These might range from school-related action or inaction, such as a breach of school security or failure to follow a student’s medical orders, to a student’s own actions and choices triggering a contributory negligence defense.

Consider these examples: A child runs into a street without a crossing guard present and is hit by a car; a teenager is shot by a rival gang member after his teacher sent him to a nearby restaurant to get her a sandwich; a boy sneaks into a restricted area of a building and falls through a ceiling; students drown in a river after taking boats out at night; and a girl on a skateboard flies off a ledge in a school parking lot. Any one of these cases could result in a liability lawsuit. But a determination of the facts may also show contributory negligence and produce strong defense against a liability claim.

The strength of a defense is determined by examining the four elements of negligence: (1) Duty to protect. Was a duty owed to the student? If it can be argued that no duty existed at the time of the injury, then a defense may be very strong. (2) Standard of care. Was reasonable care exercised in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the student? If the school adequately instructed and warned students about a danger but a student purposefully disregarded these admonitions, a defense of contributory negligence might prevail. (3) Proximate cause. Was the injury or death directly related to something the school did or failed to do? If a school’s actions or inaction cannot be demonstrated as a proximate cause of the incident, there is a strong defense. (4) Actual injury. Even if the school breached a standard of care requiring specific safety measures, lack of an injury will contribute to the defense of the lawsuit.

This article will use a hypothetical case to demonstrate how the concept of contributory negligence may serve as a defense against liability and help plaintiff and defense attorneys assess the merit of a suit or the strength of a defense.

Determining if Contributory Negligence Applies as a Defense

According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 463, contributory negligence is conduct that falls “below the standard to which [a person] should conform for his own protection.” School districts use a defense of contributory negligence when alleging that a student contributed to his or her own injury. Let’s illustrate how contributory negligence might apply when a student is seriously or fatally injured on school property.

A suburban junior high school warned students on a regular basis not to ride skateboards on school property. The principal made several such announcements over the public address system at the beginning of the school year. She also posted fliers around the school, gave one to each student in homeroom, and sent one home to parents. The announcements and fliers explained the dangers of skateboarding in the school parking lot because of the proximity of utility poles in the lot and a steep slope adjacent to it — all of which posed a threat of harm to a student who is unable to control a skateboard. The school posted signs in the parking lot reading “Danger — Skateboarding Prohibited.”

In the early morning hours before school, a group of seventh graders brought their skateboards to the parking lot and rode around. Five minutes later, one of them veered over the edge of the steep slope, crashing and seriously injuring her head. Another skateboarder called 911. EMTs treated the student onsite and transported her to a hospital. After three weeks in a coma, she died.

Our hypothetical case has the markings of a wrongful death lawsuit and a vigorous defense. In the context of the elements of negligence, let’s examine what plaintiff and defendant attorneys should consider.

First, was there a duty to protect the students? The school has a duty to reasonably protect people on its property, including the parking lot. These students were on school grounds at a time when students normally begin to arrive. The school might argue that the students should not have been in the parking lot at a certain time and, therefore, it had no duty to protect them. In this scenario, however, the weight will fall on the side of a duty to protect the students.

The next element to review is whether the school exercised reasonable care to protect its students. In our example, the school made clear to students that they were prohibited from skateboarding in the parking lot. The school also posted warning signs there. Plaintiff and defendant attorneys should examine whether school’s recognition of the danger was sufficient to protect students from harm. What did the school communicate to students? Were warnings adequate? In this situation, it’s likely that the school will argue successfully that it recognized the potential for danger and exercised reasonable care to protect students from harm.

The next question to answer is whether the student contributed in any way to her injury and death. Is it reasonable to consider that this girl would have understood the warnings but ignored them? In Russell v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska (423 N.W.2d 126 [1988]), the Supreme Court of Nebraska ruled that “One who is capable of understanding and discretion and who fails to exercise ordinary care and prudence to avoid dangers is negligent or contributory negligent.”

In determining whether contributory negligence applies, an attorney should consider three factors:

(1) Physical facts — the extent to which a hazard is noticeable and the degree of alertness called for by surrounding circumstances to avoid such a hazard. (2) The action taking place — the movement, sound, and physical activities of both the individual who was hurt as well as those of other people and objects in the vicinity. In other words, what distractions may or may not have influenced the chain of events? (3) The characteristics of the student who was hurt — age, intelligence, experience, knowledge, physical condition, or other factors that would influence a student’s ability to detect dangerous conditions or appreciate the hazards involved.

The third factor leads us to an important question: Is it possible that, because of diminished capacity, the student in our example would not be able to understand the dangers of riding a skateboard in the parking lot? Even with clear warnings about the potential for injuries when directions are not followed, some students may not understand how to keep themselves safe from harm. Assessing whether a school’s notice of danger was reasonable in this context can weigh heavily for or against a defense.

Some courts would hold that a very young child is incapable of contributory negligence because the child does not realize or understand the degree of care that must be exercised to avoid injury. Courts have differed on an age cutoff, but a common guideline is that children under the age of 7 are not capable of contributory negligence, Contributory negligence is also generally difficult to prove among students between the ages of 7 and 13, unless it can be shown that a student is unusually intelligent and mature.

School Liability and Duty of Care

Let’s conclude our example with an analysis of the facts.

Did the girl have the capacity to protect herself from harm? Let’s assume that the girl was 13 years old and in the advanced math/science track. Her IQ was above average and she didn’t have any known learning disabilities. Clearly, she would have been able to understand the principal’s announcements, read the fliers and the warning signs, and act in a way to prevent herself from injury by skateboarding in the parking lot.

Were the dangers in the parking lot clear? The slope was obvious to anyone near the edge of the parking area. The utility poles were noticeable to any person in the lot. The school posted numerous signs forbidding students to skateboard in the parking lot, and any reasonable person would see the signs. Several signs were posted near the slope and at entrances to the lot from various roads and walkways. The hazards, it could be argued, were clear to a reasonable student of the same age and capacity.

Did the school adequately exercise its duty to protect? In our case, a defense attorney may have a strong argument that the school acted appropriately under the circumstances — and that the student did not. The student had the capacity to understand that if she acted in a way counter to the school’s warnings, she risked placing herself in harm’s way. The student had a duty to protect herself from harm. Through her actions, she contributed to her own injury and subsequent death.

What was happening at the moment of injury? The girl and her friends were skateboarding in the parking lot — an action that was prohibited. There were no distractions in the lot that would have rendered her unable to control her skateboard before she went over the edge of the slope. In fact, it was learned that the injured student purposefully headed toward the slope while telling her classmates, “Look, I’m going to skate to the bottom!”

Not all liability claims are so clear-cut, and other intervening variables may warrant consideration when assessing a case involving student injury or death. Our example, however, provides a format for a plaintiff attorney to consider the merit of a case or for a defense attorney to evaluate the strength of a contributory negligence defense.

Summary

Determining the extent to which a person may be responsible for his or her own injury is critical in the school context, where the school is obligated to protect the health, safety, and welfare of students. Because of age or disability, some students may require greater supervision than others. Some students are bright and can understand the dangers that await them if they ignore warnings and choose to take a risk that could lead to injury. Two key variables in cases involving student injury and death are whether a school’s warnings to students about the dangers and risks were adequate and whether a student had the capacity to understand those warnings. When the answer to both is “yes,” then an examination of whether the student may have contributed to his or her own injury is warranted. The student’s actions may prove to be a strong defense against a liability suit.

Student Injury and Reasonable Professional Standard

Student Injury and School Liability

Student Injury and School Liability

Unquestionably, schools have a responsibility to protect children from harm. The same goes for agencies such as day care centers, summer camps, and after-school programs. Schools and agencies, however, are not the ultimate protectors; that role falls to employees, who must act on behalf of the school in a way that is reasonably calculated to maintain children’s health, safety, and well-being. The key word here is reasonable — and in the totality of a situation in which a child was injured or died, an analysis and assessment of what was reasonable can be challenging but it is the key to assesing school liability.

The distinction between a school or agency’s duty to protect and who is the ultimate protector from harm in a given situation is important, because it provides an avenue for determining liability. This is the starting point for analyzing a case involving student injury or death and assessing what kind of behavior would be expected to keep children safe. Behavior that is deemed reasonable under the circumstances leads us to the question of whether those in charge acted appropriately and within a professional standard of care that is calculated to protect children from harm.

Determining either the merit of filing a lawsuit or the strength of a defense boils down to two key questions. Attorneys need to know “What would a reasonable administrator, or other employee, do in the same or similar circumstance?” and “If this person acted differently, would the injury or death have occurred?”

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

Student Safety: What should be done?

Ensuring children’s safety requires that those in charge be both proactive and reactive in a meaningful way. At a general level, a reasonable school or program administrator would conduct a safety survey of the facility, the equipment, and the community; assess the supervisory requirements of the children based on their age, number of children, and any unique characteristics; and develop policies and specific procedures for staff implementation. Specific circumstances may compel a reasonable administrator to take additional measures or instruct staff to be vigilant and prepared to disarm a situation, even if no statute or regulation requiring specific action exists.

As an attorney, place yourself in the classroom where a child slipped and fell. Or in the daycare center where the teacher asked a child to carry hot soup across the room. Or at an agency-sponsored trip where a child ran into the street. Then ask yourself: What should the administration and staff have done to protect children in these circumstances? Were reasonable and appropriate steps taken, and if a child was hurt, would the injury have occurred even with these precautions? Let’s consider these questions in the context of two real cases.

Wrongful Death Lawsuits against Schools and Agencies

Applying the Reasonable Standard to School Accidents

The first case involves a 300-pound cafeteria table that fell on a second-grade student. This was an 18-foot table that folded in the middle and stood upright, on wheels, when folded. When the folded table was put away, it was rolled to a wall, where it would be securely fastened by a manufacturer-supplied device. Recognizing the need to protect students from a falling table, the school developed a procedure by which the custodian, immediately after lunch, would clean the tables, fold them, move them to the wall, and secure them to the wall. This was in his job description. The latches along the wall were functional, but the custodian failed to latch one table to the wall. When a student walked through the cafeteria, he leaned against the table — causing it to topple onto his head, killing him.

Any reasonable school or agency administrator would understand that if a 300-pound table was not securely fastened to the wall, it might tip and fall on a student. The school recognized this danger, developed a careful procedure, and placed it in the custodian’s job description. The manufacturer warned that the tables must be latched to the wall with the supplied mechanism to prevent accidental tipping and injury or death. The manufacturer provided this mechanism and the school properly installed it and required the custodian to use it to secure the tables. The school, through its administration, was also responsible for ensuring that its standard was followed.

In this case, the test for actual causation is whether the plaintiff could establish that this student’s death would not have occurred without the negligent conduct of the school through its employee. Viewing this through the eyes of a reasonable school administrator provides the answer. A reasonable administrator would have developed a review-and-supervision system whereby she would regularly observe to ensure that the school’s own standard was being met — that is, that the custodian latched tables to the wall as required. If the administrator saw that the custodian failed to fasten a table to the wall, it would be her responsibility to correct the custodian’s behavior by bringing this deficiency to his attention. The administrator failed to ensure that the proper procedure was being followed and that contributed to the custodian’s failure.  In this case, it was determined that if the table was securely fastened to the wall — as per the professional standard of care — the student would not have been killed.

The second case involved a television that sat atop a movable cart. Teachers used the cart regularly to move the TV from one room to another and then into a hallway storage closet at the end of the day. In the morning, the teacher wheeled the cart with the television to her classroom and set it up for a small group of children to watch. Later, she was busy with another group when she instructed two third graders to take the loaded cart down the hall and put it in the closet. Along the way, the children began to play on the cart — one standing on the bottom shelf, holding onto the sides, while the other pushed. When the child pushing the cart let go of it, the cart tipped in the direction of the student hanging off the front. The 55-pound TV slipped off the cart and fell on the child’s head, causing permanent brain injury.

As with the case involving the table, the test for actual causation in this instance is whether the plaintiff could establish that the child’s injury would not have occurred if not for the administrator’s and the teacher’s negligent conduct. A reasonable administrator would have notified teachers that children would not be allowed to push carts with TVs on top of them. In fact, in this case, the cart had a sticker on it stating “only to be moved by an adult.” Moreover, this particular cart earned the distinction as a dangerous piece of equipment by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) because of numerous injuries resulting from its design. Although the manufacturer was notified of the CPSC warning and provided this information to those who purchased the cart, the school either did not receive the warning or did not consider it when assessing the overall safety of the facility and equipment. The cart was not taken out of service and teachers were not warned to prohibit students from pushing it.

Elements of Tort Law and School Liability

Summary

Schools and agencies have a responsibility to care for and protect children from harm. They must act in a way that is reasonably calculated to maintain the health, safety, and well-being of children. An analysis and assessment of what was reasonable in the totality of the circumstances surrounding the death or injury of a child can be challenging. Determining what was reasonable under the circumstances addresses the question of whether appropriate actions within the professional standard of care were taken to protect the child from harm.

Applying the reasonable professional standard within the context of the situation provides a focus. This is best done by someone with a thorough understanding of how schools and agencies work and how a reasonable and prudent administrator would act in a specific circumstance. Attorneys who don’t have a clear picture of how systems work — or should work — in these settings often misjudge the merit of filing a lawsuit or the strength of a defense against one in cases involving a student injury or death. The two examples in this article illustrate the complex analysis required for a full understanding of a situation and its implications for determining liability.

Remember the two key questions: “What would a reasonable administrator or other employee do in the same or similar circumstance?” and “If this person acted differently, as a reasonable administrator, would the injury or death have occurred?” Attorneys who have the answers to these questions may be able to improve their assessment of a case.

Wrongful Death Lawsuits against Schools and Agencies

liability in wrongful death school cases

Wrongful Death School Lawsuits

The death of a child is always emotionally difficult for parents, relatives, and caretakers. Often, an allegation arises that the death resulted from the negligence or misconduct of the person responsible the safety of the child.  In wrongful death lawsuits against schools and agencies determining the merit of such an allegation hinges on sifting out the emotion and focusing on facts: Did the school or agency have a duty to protect the child, were standards of care followed, were those standards breached, and did the breach result in a child’s death?

When the child is in school, a daycare program, or camp, the school or agency has a duty to protect the child by providing appropriate supervision. When there is an allegation that a school or agency breached that duty and a child died a wrongful death, a claim may ensue. This article will provide guidance for attorneys who are considering filing a wrongful death complaint or who must defend a school or agency against such a complaint.

According to the 2012 National Vital Statistics Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1,296 c    children between ages 5 and 14 died in 2011 from accidents other than motor vehicle accidents, assault, suicide, and medical diseases. Although the CDC does not specify exact causes of death within this population, it is reasonable to assume that many occur while children are under the supervision of an adult in a school or other agency. In its Indicators of School Crime and Safety 2012 report, the U.S. Department of Education tallied 31 student, staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent deaths during school year 2010–2011. It is likely that some of these deaths are wrongful deaths, which are those that can be attributed to the negligence or misconduct of another individual. In a school or agency, that individual can be a supervisor, another student, or a third party.

To bring a successful wrongful death cause of action, all of the following elements must be present:

  • The death of a human being
  • Death caused by another’s negligence or intent to cause harm
  • Survival of family members who suffer monetary losses as a result of the death
  • The appointment of a personal representative for the decedent’s estate

For a school or agency to be found liable for the wrongful death of a child, the school or agency must have had a duty to care for the person who died and breached that duty, resulting in the child’s death. The death, in turn, must be shown to have caused injury or loss to others, such as surviving parents and siblings.

In the context of schools and other agencies, wrongful death claims can arise from any number of situations. Some examples include: a bus accident; a child falling from a cliff during a field trip or drowning in a swimming pool; a 300-pound, fold-up lunch table falling onto a child from a cafeteria wall; a student being shot and killed on school property by the school security guard; excessive discipline (e.g., putting a disruptive student to the floor and sitting on his back, resulting in suffocation); or administering the wrong medication. Unfortunately, these represent only a small sample what might cause of the death of a child.

Conditions for Liability in a Wrongful Death Case

A school or agency may be held liable for the wrongful death of a child in the same way that it may be held liable for the injury of a child. The conditions are the same — but the ultimate result is death, and damages are focused on survivors rather than the party who sustained the injury.

A plaintiff or defendant attorney should consider the following questions when considering the merit of filing a wrongful death complaint or mounting a defense of a complaint:

  • Did the school or agency have a duty to protect the decedent in the particular situation?
  • What was the reasonable standard of care to apply under the circumstances, and did the school or agency apply that standard?
  • If there was a breach of this standard, was it a significant factor in causing the death?
  • Were there intervening variables that may have prevented the proximate cause of injury or death?
  • Did the child who died contribute to his or her own death through self-negligence?

Duty to Protect

Those responsible for the safety of children have a duty to anticipate potential and foreseeable dangers and to take reasonable precautions to protect children from those dangers.

For activities that take place during the normal course of the program day, the duty to protect is usually easy to prove. Courts have held that this duty may apply beyond the grounds of the school or other agency, depending on the circumstance. For instance, the school or other agency may have a duty to protect children during a visit to a park from wandering into a busy highway.

Failure to Exercise a Reasonable Standard of Care

In the Houston Independent School District, construction was taking place on a junior high school campus. A tunnel linked the old and new portions of the building. A school policy required that a staff member be present at both ends of the tunnel to supervise students and to be aware of any behavioral issues that might lead to the harm of a student. This was determined to be an appropriate level of supervision.

A student in the tunnel died after he was attacked and struck in the head with a screwdriver. On the day of the attack, one teacher who was assigned supervisory duty called in sick and the school failed to replace him at the post. As the expert witness in this case, my opinion was that this was a failure to exercise the school’s own standard of care and the professional standard of care in the field.

If a supervisor does not take reasonable steps to protect a child from injury, that person and the employer can be found negligent. Courts will weigh the actions of the employee against how a reasonable employee in the same position would have acted in a similar circumstance.

For instance, would a reasonable supervisor tell children to cross a street to meet her at a park entrance when that entrance is across a busy highway without a crosswalk? More than likely, a court would deem it irresponsible for a supervisor to instruct children to meet her across the highway at a location that a reasonable supervisor would consider dangerous.

Proximate Cause

If a child entered the roadway, was struck by a motor vehicle, and died, attorneys would need to determine all the facts. These may include intervening variables, like vehicle failure or road-design failure, to mount an effective strategy.

This illustrates another important question to consider: If the supervisor failed to exercise a reasonable standard of care, did this failure result in the child’s death?

The ability to prove this element depends on establishing that a child’s death could have been reasonably foreseen and prevented. If the death could have been anticipated and prevented by an employee through the exercise of a reasonable standard of care, legal causation may exist.

The question for the attorney to ask is whether the death of the child was a natural and probable result of the wrongful act and should have been foreseen by the supervisor in the context of the circumstances.

Revisiting the example above, it may be established that a reasonable child supervisor would have observed that vehicles were traveling at a potentially dangerous speed and that there was no crosswalk at the location where children were gathered. If the children were 5 or 6 years old, a reasonable supervisor would understand that they would not have the capacity to protect themselves from harm because of their age. A reasonable supervisor would consider that if she directed the children to cross the roadway at this location, it is foreseeable that a vehicle could strike a child. A jury could determine that the supervisor’s decision to instruct the children to cross the street was a deliberate action that placed the child in harm’s way and was the proximate cause of the child’s death.

A wrongful death claim will not be successful if the death could not have been prevented. If the supervisor in our example gathered the children together when they left the bus, escorted them to the corner, observed that there was a traffic light and crosswalk, instructed the children about the dangers of crossing the street and the precautions to take, and then instructed them to cross when she was sure the traffic stopped, the supervisor would have acted reasonably under the circumstances. Now, let’s suppose that a car failed to obey the stoplight, hitting and killing a child. In this situation, a jury may determine that the supervisor did everything possible to protect the child, and that a third-party act was the proximate cause of the child’s death. The unavoidability of the accident, in other words, nullifies proximate cause.

Contributory Negligence

If it can be shown that a child contributed to his or her own death, the school or agency may invoke contributory negligence, a common defense against liability. If the court holds that contributory negligence was a factor in the child’s death, the school or agency may be held only partially liable or not liable at all, depending on the jurisdiction.

Take the case involving the drowning death of several students attending a leadership conference at a youth camp in Chicago. My review and analysis of the facts led me to conclude that the students, because of their age and capacity to understand the dangers, were able to guard their own safety but made decisions that inevitably lead to their death. Thus, the camp, in my opinion, was not responsible.

The students left their cabin after their supervisor was asleep, went down to a river that was clearly marked with warning signs, and placed several boats into the water. The boats began to sink, causing students to abandon the boats and drown. The school sponsored the event at the camp and as such had the responsibility to supervise the students during the day and at night, but did not place the appropriate number of supervisors in the cabin at night. Therefore, I concluded that the school and the students bore responsibility for their deaths.

Contributory negligence is difficult to prove among children between the ages of 7 and 14, unless it can be shown that a student is unusually intelligent and mature. In this case, the students were 17 and 18 years old and were selected from their peers to participate in this leadership-training program because of their intelligence and maturity.

Summary

Because these claims are emotional, it can be easy to jump to a conclusion. The plaintiff or defendant attorney should review potential negligence issues in a step-by-step manner to determine the merit of a claim or strength of a defense.

Duty to supervise, reasonable supervisory care consistent with the standard required in the field, breach of duty, and contributory negligence are factors that can present a roadmap to effective litigation. An expert witness can assist plaintiff and defendant attorneys with a thorough analysis of these issues.