Teacher's Affirmative Defenses

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

2. The school should be held liable for Holbrook injury of there was no school supervision provided in the area Holbrook and other students were gathering.

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.

In Handleman, the plaintiff alleged that he could not have foreseen that he could be injured by exposed outcropping of rock. Handleman at 13. Similarly, plaintiff Adair alleges that “none of us bargained on putting our lives on the line by climbing without an anchor on a practice climb.” The court in Handleman forecloses this line of inquiry into foreseeability by reasoning that assumption of risk does not require “clairvoyance to forsee the exact accident and injury that in fact occurs.” Id. Consequently, the court held that all that is required to prove assumption of risk is that the injury “be within the range of possibilities.” Id. Falling is certainly within the range of possibility for anyone who is climbing high up on a rock formation, and therefore Adair assumed the risk of falling in the instant case.

The disparate treatment doctrine requires that any plaintiff must demonstrate that an employer has treated some group of people less favorably than others because of any protected classification to include their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. According to Walsh, “Three provisions required to prove disparate treatment are (1) the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory

The type of defense that can be used by the defendant is the assumption of risk. This states that the plaintiff willing

Negligence is “an act or omission which violates a legal duty and creates an unreasonable risk of harm to another, resulting in injury” (Rosenthal, 2003-2004). Every sport possesses its own unique risks. “Personal injuries are not only a consequence of competition, they are an object of that competition” (Fitzgerald, 2005). Sports require and encourage rough play. Those who participate know this and accept those risks.

The defendant, Kingston High School, is negligent under the Ontario Occupants Liability Act against the plaintiff, Mary. The defendant failed to uphold a duty of care against the plaintiff, which resulted in general and special damages. The plaintiff is owed compensation for medical care and treatment expenses, the economic loss from failing to attend the remainder of the semester of business school, and a loss in prospective wages from future employment.

There is sufficient evidence of the final prong for damages under the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court has held that in order for a plaintiff to show damages, he or she must be susceptible to medical diagnosis and medical evidence that proves the casual link between the observation at the scene and the subsequent emotional reaction. Hegel v. McMahon, 136 Wash. 2d 122 (Wash 1998). The emotional response must also be reasonable under the circumstances. Id. (citing Hunsley, 87 Wash. 2d at 436.)

Causation needs to be established. With causation the defendant (university) needs to have caused harm because of their lack of action. Was the plaintiff just careless in their action causing the slip and fall? Did the university not cleaning the parking lot cause the fall of the student? For the claimant to recover damages this is where they would need to prove that the university was at least partially at fault in causing them harm (Owen, 2007). The school not cleaning the parking lot shows that their actions was the majority at fault of injury.

No reason appears why the instructor would have made such a statement unless it were true during the cooking class. Therefore, the statement is admissible under FRE 804(b)(3) to prove that Song was not negligent in her actions. In this case, Song only lit the grill and walked away because she recalled the Kensington cooking class instructor stating that she could lit the grill, let it get hot and leave the lid open to prep the food for as long as it took to get the food ready. Therefore, the statement is admissible under FRE 804(a)(4) for the purposes of this

An officer claimed that there were no signs of injury however, the students attorney said that the student did in fact have injuries, she suffered a bruise on her head,

It was unethical for school officials to report that they did not know how the student sustained injuries. It seems that a thorough investigation was not done to decipher what happened in the student’s classroom. It is against the law for any teacher to inflict any form of injuries to students. School officials are held accountable for each student who is placed into their care. Therefore, it was an irresponsible action against the school system.

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.

1992). The age of the student involved plays a factor as well, putting some liability on the parents. With the numerous factors involved in the determination of liability a teacher should be well versed in the rules and regulations as well as their responsibilities to the classroom and to the students themselves.