The Benefits Of Tort Schools

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.

When it comes to schools the district does whatever it cam to keep the students safe. By setting rules the students are to follow. Rules such as, dress code, attendance, classroom procedures, and more. All indended for one reason and that is to protect the students.

School should install high tech safety features around their school like cameras or alarm systems. Talking to my cousin Kamalpreet about school security was a must because she goes to school where there were lots of crime-related issues. She always talks about what happened at their school. Kamalpreet said she witnessed lots of crime happening around their school and that their school doesn’t have any type of security arrangements. Many people fight at their school and no one is there to stop them because of lack of security system. She said “no matter what type of school it is they should have security arrangements for their school safety.” Also she said “that as new technology is on the rise and they should make some type of detectors to keep schools safe.” Every school should have some type of security and it is not cheap to get security systems. The whole issue is about money because they are too expensive, so not every school can afford them. There are many ways to raise money if school tries and that money can help with security. Raising money is always an option when it comes down to children’s safety. Teachers should keep children on the right track then they will go into right direction and that will help school as a whole feel safer. If teachers don’t teach anything then children will fight with each other and school won’t feel safe, but that is also up to the students. The Department

The current law in place regarding teacher’s liability for personal injury is effective in placing responsibility on the state and away from the teacher. This is reflected through the Public Service and Other Legislation (Civil Liability) Amendment Bill 2013 (QLD) which amended the Public Service Act 2008 (QLD) as well as other legislation. The aim of the amendments is to provide ‘legislative immunity against civil liability.Liability will instead lie with the state.’ The Queensland government’s clear intention for this amendment was ‘not about reducing responsibility and accountability of public servants: it is about ensuring that we have a framework in place that supports our people when they do jobs we ask of them and do them in an appropriate standard.’ The government also proposed in the amendment that ‘the state has a right to recover contributions from employees who are subsequently found to have engaged in conduct other than in good faith and where it amounts to gross negligence.’Subsequently, while the Queensland government has allowed for such legislative framework, transfiguration of political climates may affect the status of this legislation.

The plaintiff (female student) has every right to take action against the negligent teacher and school.

Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.

Who is at fault? How much should I get? How long do I have to cerebrate about it? These are the three sizable questions when it comes to tort reform. This is one of the sultriest legal topics bypassing the country because not only does it affect the victim, it withal effects the incriminated and the rest of the taxpayers. First, if there is no tort reform the United States will perpetuate on its lawsuit blissful path causing insurance rates and costs to perpetuate to skyrocket. On the other hand, if there is an inordinate amount of reform, victims will be left behind and their rights lost. Lastly, I would relish to do more research on what precisely needs to be transmuted to make the legislation fair for all parties involved. In Conclusion,

Tort reform refers to laws passed on a state-by-state basis that basically places limits or caps on the type or amount of damages that can be awarded in personal injury lawsuits. Personally, I definitely agree that tort reform should be passed into law for every state because sometimes the damages that are awarded in lawsuits are too excessive. Moreover, tort reform still allows for the plaintiff to recover damages just not at an excessive and unreasonable amount of damages.

A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.

In January 2015, her family contacted the school in an attempt to resolve the issue, but the school did not act in accordance with their anti-bullying policy nor take steps to effectively deal with the ongoing harassment Williams faced. She argued the school failed to acknowledge and manage the maltreatment of the plaintiff despite bullying being evident to several teachers and staff employed at Cardiff College. Williams is seeking $250,000 in damages for psychiatric expenses and psychological injury.

T.L.O. case “...school officials do not have to meet the same standards as police officers when conducting searches” (New Jersey v. T.L.O.). The T.L.O. case was just one of the cases concerning schools and there were many others, including the Safford Unified School District v. Redding case. This case specifically concerned searching for drugs in schools. The Court ruled in this case, “...no indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity or any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying these pills in her underwear. Given these deficiencies, we conclude that the search was unreasonable. T.L.O. directed school officials to limit the intrusiveness of a search in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction” (Safford Unified School District v. Redding). Basically, if there is no disturbance in the school day, then there should be a search procedure with a warrant. However, if there is a disturbance in the school day, the school should not be required to get a search

On or about July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff, Scott Siegel, was involved in an accident on the playground, which resulted in injury to the Plaintiff. One substitute teacher was supervising all eighty children on the playground. The substitute teacher, Defendant, Andrew Rafter, noticed the Plaintiff and friends spinning too fast on a merry-go-round and told them to slow down and get off. He then turned his back to the boys to tend to other students and that is when the accident occurred and Scott injured his leg. Scott’s father wants compensation from the school board due to lack of supervision during the playground activities. Defendant parties are a public entity so they may be immune from suit.

The school staff has abused the children physically, sexually, emotionally, and psychologically. The students has