-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
School Negligence (Locked by Puck)
- Thread starter Zigner
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Zigner
Senior Member, Non-Attorney
The 4th link on Google (which is a link to a news item relating to Autism Spectrum Disorder, apparently edited out of your list for effect) is the first one that even seems related to our discussion. Doesn't take much to weed out the irrelevant items. 
3-4 is also the age that "typically" learning kids start pre-school though it is completely at the parents discretion. It is even more important for special needs kids to start school, and receive all the necessary services for their needs, as early as they can though...
I find it very hard to believe that this school was as negligent as the OP claimed they were. In every school I've worked in, one of the first pieces of documentation I receive is a list of all students in my class with allergies and what they are allergic to as well as any other health concerns I may need to be aware of concerning them.
The OP's son should have already had an IEP or IFSP initial review meeting to determine the services he would receive for pre-school. All of the teachers and therapists that would work with him should have been present at this meeting and should have known this child could not have oatmeal. Also, since the OP supposedly informed the school nurse of the food allergies, the nurse most likely did inform the therapists (the OP should have been proactive and talked to the therapist himself though).
This whole story just doesn't add up for me. As someone else stated, the OP is clearly just looking to see what money can be gained from this incident (that I remain skeptical about anyway).
I find it very hard to believe that this school was as negligent as the OP claimed they were. In every school I've worked in, one of the first pieces of documentation I receive is a list of all students in my class with allergies and what they are allergic to as well as any other health concerns I may need to be aware of concerning them.
The OP's son should have already had an IEP or IFSP initial review meeting to determine the services he would receive for pre-school. All of the teachers and therapists that would work with him should have been present at this meeting and should have known this child could not have oatmeal. Also, since the OP supposedly informed the school nurse of the food allergies, the nurse most likely did inform the therapists (the OP should have been proactive and talked to the therapist himself though).
This whole story just doesn't add up for me. As someone else stated, the OP is clearly just looking to see what money can be gained from this incident (that I remain skeptical about anyway).
Last edited:
GaAtty
This is a response to this statement in the post: "We believe we have an open and shut case of negligence." The school and its employees have sovereign immunity from state law torts. Negligence is, of course, a state law tort. Any case brought against the school or its employees for this matter will lose because of the immunity. Any attorney who would take such a case had better have a way to get around the immunity.
This is a response to this statement in the post: "We believe we have an open and shut case of negligence." The school and its employees have sovereign immunity from state law torts. Negligence is, of course, a state law tort. Any case brought against the school or its employees for this matter will lose because of the immunity. Any attorney who would take such a case had better have a way to get around the immunity.
Can I ask what your resource was for this information? Unless school law around this matter varies from state to state, and it probably does to a point, it is not true. Schools and school employees can definitely be liable for negligence, and they are not granted immunity for all state law torts.
GaAtty
For our state, the Georgia constitution provides schools with immunity. This is explained in the following quote from a recent case, Chisholm v. Tippens,289 Ga. App. 757 (2008):
It is well established that, in the absence of some special circumstance, claims against a public school district and its officials in their official capacity are barred by sovereign immunity. This immunity applies equally to claims in negligence and in nuisance. School districts and boards are entitled to sovereign immunity, and their employees are entitled to official immunity from personal liability for injuries sustained as a result of the negligent performance of discretionary official acts. [FN4]
FN4. (Citations and footnote omitted.) Crisp County School Dist. v. Pheil, 231 Ga.App. 139, 140(1), 498 S.E.2d 134 (1998). See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. IX.
As we indicated in Gamble v. Ware County Bd. of Ed., [FN5] a state agency may waive its sovereign immunity only through an act of the legislature which expressly provides for and sets forth the extent of such a waiver. [FN6] For example, the Georgia Tort Claims Act, OCGA § 50-21-20 et seq., provides for a limited waiver of the state's sovereign immunity for the torts of its officers and employees; however, it expressly excludes school districts or other "local authorities" from the waiver. END OF QUOTE
I did check before responding to this question and, as I suspected, Virginia has the same immunity for school districts. Most states do have immunity for school districts.
The following quote is from Colona v. Accomack County School Bd., 52 Va. Cir. 421 (2000) , "Counties in Virginia are cloaked with sovereign immunity in tort actions. Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301 (1984). And school boards in counties share that immunity. Kellam v. School Board, 202 Va. 252 (1960). Messina, 228 Va. at 309." This case is not overruled and has no negative history, therefore it is good law.
Therefore, there are very limited exceptions in which a school employee can be sued for violation of state tort law. Perhaps the situations with which you are familiar were those few exceptions. It did not seem to me that this case fell under any exception. Ordinary negligence will not support a claim. However, the state law immunity does not prevent a school official from being sued for federal law violations (such as a violation of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) or from criminal prosecution for criminal acts. As I said, an attorney must know the situations and exceptions to the immunity in order to bring a suit which will prevail.
For our state, the Georgia constitution provides schools with immunity. This is explained in the following quote from a recent case, Chisholm v. Tippens,289 Ga. App. 757 (2008):
It is well established that, in the absence of some special circumstance, claims against a public school district and its officials in their official capacity are barred by sovereign immunity. This immunity applies equally to claims in negligence and in nuisance. School districts and boards are entitled to sovereign immunity, and their employees are entitled to official immunity from personal liability for injuries sustained as a result of the negligent performance of discretionary official acts. [FN4]
FN4. (Citations and footnote omitted.) Crisp County School Dist. v. Pheil, 231 Ga.App. 139, 140(1), 498 S.E.2d 134 (1998). See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. IX.
As we indicated in Gamble v. Ware County Bd. of Ed., [FN5] a state agency may waive its sovereign immunity only through an act of the legislature which expressly provides for and sets forth the extent of such a waiver. [FN6] For example, the Georgia Tort Claims Act, OCGA § 50-21-20 et seq., provides for a limited waiver of the state's sovereign immunity for the torts of its officers and employees; however, it expressly excludes school districts or other "local authorities" from the waiver. END OF QUOTE
I did check before responding to this question and, as I suspected, Virginia has the same immunity for school districts. Most states do have immunity for school districts.
The following quote is from Colona v. Accomack County School Bd., 52 Va. Cir. 421 (2000) , "Counties in Virginia are cloaked with sovereign immunity in tort actions. Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301 (1984). And school boards in counties share that immunity. Kellam v. School Board, 202 Va. 252 (1960). Messina, 228 Va. at 309." This case is not overruled and has no negative history, therefore it is good law.
Therefore, there are very limited exceptions in which a school employee can be sued for violation of state tort law. Perhaps the situations with which you are familiar were those few exceptions. It did not seem to me that this case fell under any exception. Ordinary negligence will not support a claim. However, the state law immunity does not prevent a school official from being sued for federal law violations (such as a violation of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act) or from criminal prosecution for criminal acts. As I said, an attorney must know the situations and exceptions to the immunity in order to bring a suit which will prevail.
Last edited:
Wow. Well, from what I remember from having to learn school law in my state, schools and school employees here are not granted complete immunity.
I am a teacher and I am not sure how I feel knowing this is allowed in other states!
On one hand, it would possibly save a school employee personal financial liability. On the other hand, if there were true negligence, I'm not sure it would be right to grant them complete immunity unless they received appropriate disciplinary action from the school(and they probably would).
Thanks for sharing that information!
I am a teacher and I am not sure how I feel knowing this is allowed in other states!
On one hand, it would possibly save a school employee personal financial liability. On the other hand, if there were true negligence, I'm not sure it would be right to grant them complete immunity unless they received appropriate disciplinary action from the school(and they probably would).
Thanks for sharing that information!
I think a hefty amount of taxpayer money already has to go towards schools defending themselves. Parents will sue for anything and everything these days. Our school district had 12 full time lawyers for a thirteen thousand kid district. I don't think that the parents win all that often, and if they do, the schools have insurance to cover the payments. But your tax money does go for lawyers, insurance, and to pay teachers who have to join a union to get legal coverage. It's the entitlement, me-me-me era, and it just seems to be getting worse!
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">