Cell phone confiscated by school is lost

[Shay-Pari'e]

She may very well be right, even a blind squirell finds a nut every once in a while! I've also known attorneys to be wrong!

You just insulted one of our many attorney's on this board.

 

[GulfBreeze]

Wow...simply amazing. The thread here has turned into a circus. The lost or stolen part...the one in which the school would not be responsible for, I am sure it has to do with items kids bring tot he school. I dont believe for one second that the statement is attached in the same paragraph as the part about bringing cell phones to school. Any sensible person would agree, that if a policy was made that said it would be taken, that it also would assume responsibility for it until returned to the owner. In the course of time, between the taking and the return, all reasonable care should be taken to secure it so it was not easily made available for a theft to occur. In this case, it was not. The policy was broken by the student and the teacher took the phone...however, after it was taken, the teacher due to the lack of reasonable care, laziness or just plain stupidness...left it out in the open for anyone to take. They did not follow what they are suppose to do..take it to the office. They didn't have to drop everything to do this. They could have taken the phone to the office BUT before they did, made sure that during that time in between, it was not anywhere that someone had access to it. The teacher could have sent the student to the office with the phone. The teacher could have put the phone in their pocket. The teacher could have warned the student. The teacher could have called the office over the intercom and had someone from the office come by the classroom. No, instead, the teacher took the phone, place it down in plain site and the phone was taken....or maybe the teacher took it and said it was stolen by someone else. BOTTOM LINE...the teacher did NOT properly secure the phone to prevent the phone from being stolen. They did NOT use reasonable care. They did NOT secure the phone. They did NOT get it to the office for the parents to pick up. RESULTS..the phone is missing due to the teacher's neglect. Thus..the school, who employs the teacher and the school who sets the policy (or school district) is responsible for the phone. I will say without giving it any further talk. Those who disagree with the school/teacher being at fault are complete, without a doubt, the most stupidest people on the earth. This is not much of a case for a judge to decide. It would rule as they have in many cases....the school will be found GUILTY of not using reasonable care and be responsible for the phone. END OF DISCUSSION......

 

[Zigner]

I dont believe for one second that the statement is attached in the same paragraph as the part about bringing cell phones to school.

In our district, it *is* attached directly to it. I am assuming (there's that word again) that it's the same in our OP's case.

 

[GulfBreeze]

In our district, it *is* attached directly to it. I am assuming (there's that word again) that it's the same in our OP's case.

Well, its not in ours. Otherwise, why wouldn't it say it in the same sentence? BTW, just because it "might" be written in your policy, doesn't make it legally correct. The law of the land over-rides anything that is incorrectly posted as "policy". You see, the judge would determine it. Not some "disclaimer". Maybe the parents should instruct their kids NOT to hand the phone over to irresponsible teachers and demand accountability by having it personally handed over in the office. The child is already in trouble, so a trip to the office would only make it official and documented. I would expect teachers to be grow-ups and not absent-minded robots obeying policies without regard to personal property. If they can not hand this simple task, maybe they shouldn't be entrusted with the job of educating our kids.

 

[Zigner]

Well, its not in ours. Otherwise, why wouldn't it say it in the same sentence? BTW, just because it "might" be written in your policy, doesn't make it legally correct. The law of the land over-rides anything that is incorrectly posted as "policy". You see, the judge would determine it. Not some "disclaimer". Maybe the parents should instruct their kids NOT to hand the phone over to irresponsible teachers and demand accountability by having it personally handed over in the office. The child is already in trouble, so a trip to the office would only make it official and documented. I would expect teachers to be grow-ups and not absent-minded robots obeying policies without regard to personal property. If they can not hand this simple task, maybe they shouldn't be entrusted with the job of educating our kids.

Gulf -

The parent knew about the policy. The parent chose to "trust" the child to perform according to the policy. The child chose NOT to perform according to the policy.

Gulf - you can't have it both ways. You want the school to follow the policy in one sentence and then not follow the policy in the next.

As I said earlier, perhaps the court is the best forum for this. We disagree and, obviously, won't come to a consensus. So, I'll part ways with this thread here. Enjoy.

 

[CdwJava]

Okay ... let's transfer this to MY realm - law enforcement.

If I seize your property as a result of it being misused (say, a firearm or even something simple like a scanner or a cell phone), *I* become responsible for it. If that item is lost without the benefit of due process, *I* or my agency becomes financially responsible for the value of that item. The school is in the same boat. They took property which was contraband only by virtue of the fact it was present on school property. Once they did that they (the school) assumed responsibility for the property, and this makes them liable for the loss.

It is irrelevant from a liability standpoint as to whether the device SHOULD have been at school. The only point in consideration was who had care and custody of the phone. had Junior lost it in class, it would be HIS bad. But he did not have the opportunity to secure it as it was not in his possession.

Since small claims courts (at least in my state) cannot have attorneys sent on behalf of the individual named, if the OP sues the teacher in small claims court, the teacher will have to show and I seriously doubt he will suffer that blow without a fight, so the teacher and the union will probably push the school to indemnify him and pay the loss. If they sue the school, then the district's attorney can show and the school will hardly feel the issue ... but, if the teacher is having to go, then they just might.

The school will lose a small claims action against it and I believe they will ultimately cave on a claim for the phone as they really have no grounds to stand on. I don't see that there is any wiggle room for the school at all. But, I'm in another state so maybe the OP's state extends that liability to the original party ... though, I doubt it.


- Carl

 

[GulfBreeze]

Gulf -

The parent knew about the policy. The parent chose to "trust" the child to perform according to the policy. The child chose NOT to perform according to the policy.

Gulf - you can't have it both ways. You want the school to follow the policy in one sentence and then not follow the policy in the next.

As I said earlier, perhaps the court is the best forum for this. We disagree and, obviously, won't come to a consensus. So, I'll part ways with this thread here. Enjoy.

Is that the best you can offer as an excuse for the irresponsibility performed by the teacher? That the student didn't obey the rules, so then it should suffer the loss of the item because the teacher didn't need to exercise proper care in securing it? Is your big argument that since the child broke the policy and caused such an uprising by viewing/sending a little text message..thus be forced to suffer the loss of this "toy"? Please don't take a small portion of this message and answer it with a quick reply. Answer it in whole. Is the loss of the phone due to negligent by the teacher in securing it properly the justice penalty for the use during school hours....if so, tell me where in the statutes or what kind of judge would side with the school???? Even if it was, which I highly doubt it (least not if it was, would it be one which a judge would have to follow) where does it say that the item will probably not be returned due to the lack of care.....no, i believe it said it would be returned by picking it up from the office. Now, the part of it that doesn't make sense is, what happened from the time it was taken from the student and the pick up from the office. Oh yeah, the teacher just set it down. Maybe the teacher should leave their things laying around...but I bet the teacher has more sense than to leave THEIR stuff out in the open....except that we are talking about something they didn't care about since it wasn't theirs....lol

 

[GulfBreeze]

BTW...you can argue all you want. This will be between those parties and not us. Neither one of us will be the judge of it.....This discussion is pointless. Your excuses are pointless as well. No further discussion is needed. It would just be repeated by both sides. You are wrong and that is it. Have a nice day.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Thanks Carl for stepping in. So we have a lawyer and a police officer stating the same, (And little old bad parent me).

OP, let us know the outcome.

I'm in a much better mood today zinger.

 

[GulfBreeze]

Thanks Carl for stepping in. So we have a lawyer and a police officer stating the same, (And little old bad parent me).

OP, let us know the outcome.

I'm in a much better mood today zinger.

poor zinger. got caught on the wrong side of the argument and still doesnt understand that he is wrong.

 

[You Are Guilty]

If anyone still cares, do a search for "bailment". There was a discussion here not too long ago which went over the different types, and the requirements of each. It should put an end to the "liable or not" discussion.

 

[CdwJava]

And ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailment

- Carl

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

So, if I read the description of bailment correctly, the school had the responsibility to keep the phone safe until it could be transfered to a parent. Because they failed (teacher left phone in the open), the school is responsible.

My question would be: for how much? the value of the phone? replacing it?

 

[CdwJava]

So, if I read the description of bailment correctly, the school had the responsibility to keep the phone safe until it could be transfered to a parent. Because they failed (teacher left phone in the open), the school is responsible.

My question would be: for how much? the value of the phone? replacing it?

The standard is generally the value fo the phone, not the cost of replacement.

It's like getting into a collision ... if my 12 year old Saturn Station Wagon is destroyed, I don't get $20,000 to buy a new one, I would get the market value of the vehicle (maybe $4,000 or less).

- carl

 

[CourtClerk]

Just a tad bit of a correction as to the California Courts....

Okay ... let's transfer this to MY realm - law enforcement.


Since small claims courts (at least in my state) cannot have attorneys sent on behalf of the individual named, if the OP sues the teacher in small claims court, the teacher will have to show

Only if they sued the teacher personally... if they chose to sue the school district (which it sounds like they are interested in doing), then the district could feasibly send anyone on behalf of the district (principal, vice principal, etc.)

and I seriously doubt he will suffer that blow without a fight, so the teacher and the union will probably push the school to indemnify him and pay the loss. If they sue the school, then the district's attorney can show and the school will hardly feel the issue ... but, if the teacher is having to go, then they just might.

The district's attorney can only show up on appeal.... Attorneys cannot represent parties in small claims on original claims.

The school will lose a small claims action against it and I believe they will ultimately cave on a claim for the phone as they really have no grounds to stand on. I don't see that there is any wiggle room for the school at all. But, I'm in another state so maybe the OP's state extends that liability to the original party ... though, I doubt it.


- Carl

But yep... we're talking value at the time of the phone at the time of the loss, not the replacement value and let's all remember that cell phones depreciate almost (if not as) as fast as cars do... That $200 phone is now probably valued at $49.95, which is what they'd get. And you can get the current value of the phone by contacting the cell phone company.