School And Free From Harm Or Risk Of Injury

Section 9(2)(a) of the Civil Liability Act states that when deciding whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, the courts consider the probability of harm occurring if care was not taken. Secondly, s 9(2)(b) considers what the gravity/ seriousness of the risk was and whether the defendant should adopt special care if s/he knows that people with particular needs are exposed to the foreseeable risk. However, the teacher/ school authority is not required to protect the student against all risk and sometimes a reasonable response is to do

4. If school officials knew a violent act was threatened to occur or if there should have been a school official on duty where the students were and was not, the school could be held liable for the injury.

There are many questions and arguments that remain about the standard of care within schools. Should the current standard of care in relation to schools be increased or remain the same or be substantially reduced? Does law of torts make a teacher’s job too difficult? Should schools always be held liable when a student is injured? ‘A tort is a “civil wrong” and for someone to commit a tort they have to interfere with another person’s rights, or fail in their legal obligations to that person, and this causes the person to suffer.’ (Drew Hopkins, 2008) An example case of civil wrong is State of Victoria v Bryar [1970] 44 ALJR 174.

Establishing negligence requires the plaintiff to prove the three elements of negligence before a court. The elements are that, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the duty of care was breached, and that the harms suffered were directly related to the defendant’s breach. For a successful claims the plaintiff must satisfy all three by the balance of probabilities, which has been the case since Donohue v Stevenson. Simon must therefore prove that there was a duty of care owed to him by the defendant, his teacher, Mr Philpot. Therefore, he must prove that the harm suffered would have been reasonably foreseeable due to the actions or omission of the defendant. In this case, Mr Philpot owes Simon a duty of care, as it is reasonably foreseeable that a failure to provide sufficient supervision could result in injury when considering the nature of the environment they are in and the age of the students. Therefore, the first element is satisfied.

Negligence is upholding a certain leavel of care by determining if it meets the four components nessessary for a claim; duty, breach of duty, causation, and damages. In this case duty was not handled correctly. Duty means you agree to take care of a health care patients. THe girls working at the Good Samaritan Home did not take proper care of the residents. Breach of duty is broken down into four categories; Misfeasance, nonfeasance, and malfeasance. In this case the breach of duty refers to nonfeasance. There was a failure to act, by no other employees bringing the ause to attention. Causation requires an injury to be due to the healthcare professionals negligence. In the case of abuse in the Good Samaritan case there was no other way the injuries could have happened. The damages refers to the injuries caused to the residents.

In order to prove Thomas liable in this situation, there would have to be evidence of proximate cause (Essex, 2016). The student, or student’s family, would need to be able to prove that there is a relationship between the principal’s breach of duty, and the injury the student suffered (Essex, 2016). I have dedicated the remainder of this paragraph to describing the ways in which Thomas may be in breach of his duty. Thomas has the responsibility as the school principal to ensure that Homewood High School has highly qualified teachers. It is his responsibility to recommend to the board the person best suited for the

It is reported that a girl was banned from a public Catholic school, the girls was disabled and it was stated that her parents faced accusations of presenting a threat to the mental health of her teachers. Morgan Webb Liddle has cerebral palsy. The teachers at Sacred Heart College took legal steps that were of an "extraordinary' nature to bar the child from the Catholic school based on their feeing "stressed and harassed." (Lee-Potter, 2013, p.1) The teachers at the school filed a notice with the principal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Morgan was ordered to not attend school and her parents ordered not to contact the school. According to John Harding, Head of Cambridge

Children do not yet have the knowledge of how to protect themselves from abuse or harm, therefore adults have a duty to look after them. Parents leave their children in the care of the school and trust staff to ensure that their child is well cared for whilst in the setting. Failing to do so shows unprofessionalism of the school and staff. Theoretically, everyone in a school setting has the opportunity to harm children.

Read more: Liability of School Districts and School Personnel for Negligence - Duty, Breach of Duty, Injury, Causation, Defenses, Malpractice - StateUniversity.com

Five negative developments have occurred since the removal of prayer from public school. Academic achievement has plunged (including SAT scores). There has been an increased rate of out-of-wedlock births, leaving single mothers to struggle to survive (Starr, 2014). Illegal drug use has gone rampant. The amount of juvenile crime has skyrocketed. Lastly, behavior in school has drastically deteriorated. William Jeynes, a professor at California State College, says “ so we need to realize that these actions do have consequences” (Starr, 2014). These negative developments have occurred since the Engle v. Vitale case of 1962.

TEACHER had a DUTY of CARE to the PLAINTIFF. TEACHER BREACHED his DUTY of CARE to keep the PLAINTIFF SAFE by NOT SUPERVISING the PLAINTIFF PROPERLY AND BY NOT GETTING IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ATTENTION for the PLAINTIFF after finding out about the PLAINTIFF'S INJURY. This BREACH OF DUTY was both the ACTUAL CAUSE and PROXIMATE CAUSES of the PLAINTIFF'S INJURY.

Just as the school had to show reasonable care, the student should have taken reasonable care in walking on the slick parking lot. The duty of care, and the decisions taken by director, the courts state that in this case the directors decision is constrained by the “business judgment rule”; a doctrine that states that there is limited liability by the director as long as he/she was acting in good faith, and had taken due care in their decision making (Hansen, 1993). The director under this law would not be liable for the injuries of the student, and would not be required to pay damages. In these types of cases you need to think like a lawyer and think “LOOPHOLE”. There are many types of loopholes that would show the director not responsible

In sum, Lyons-Burke is probably liable for negligent supervision because the school had the duty to provide adequate supervision for its students and the school breached that duty. As mentioned above, there are two other elements of negligent supervision, however this memorandum assumes that they have already been proven. Thus, because the victim warned the school and the school had knowledge of the attacker’s disciplinary record and the school failed to protect the victim while she was under the orbit of authority of the school, it is in the best interest of Lyons-Burke to settle the case.

Middle school, a place with lots of people and gossip. It’s nothing to fuss about it’s just life. When I was in middle school, I had my older brother Terrell there with me. We didn’t see one another a lot, but it was ok. he and I were very close and did lots of things together, you could even say he was my best friend. The first day I wasn’t really aghast at all he told me very good things and made it easy. Every year was new but the only thing I didn’t appreciate about school was that my cousins didn’t go with me. from k4 to 2nd grade we always went to school together. I guess you can say I was still antisocial, I didn’t want anyone but my brother and cousins. We’d see each other all the time on the weekends and have sleepovers and all

NEGLIGENCE will be found if TEACHER OWED a DUTY, the duty was BREACHED, and the breach was both the ACTUAL CAUSE and the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGES.