School negligence liability for student injury at off-campus counseling group

¶ … Liability of a Negligence

Judy Taylor

From: Smith & Associates LLP

Seeking Legal Advice whether the school has a Potential Liability for a Negligence

DEFINING THE ISSUE

Under N.Y.S.3d 307, does Montauk High School has potential liability for a negligence of supervision of the school student? The issue is to investigate whether Montauk High School can be accused of negligence of the student wounded by the other student.

Short Answer

No, the Montauk High School has no potential liability for Andrew Miller, a 9th Grader because school has already suspended the student out the school, and the incident happens outside the school's premises.

Discussion

The issue is to establish whether defendant, Mrs. Judy Taylor, the principal of Montauk High School has a potential liability for a negligence under the N.Y.S.3d 307. The issue reveals whether Montauk High School can be liable to Andrew Miller for negligence under the NY (New York) Common Law. A duty of an individual is to protect others from unreasonable risks and a person breaking that breach of his or her duty is negligent of his duty and liable for injuries that has been resulted from his or her negligence. Smith v. Allen. However, the school is not expected to guide all students from harm.

The rule governing the elements and issue is that a school can be liable to student's negligent supervision if:

The school has breached its duty

The school has a duty and responsibilities in order to supervise the students, and The school has breached its duty that causes proximately student injury.

See the case of New York Mirand v. City. The "637 N.E.2d 263, 266 (N.Y. 1994)." (Arnold, 2015 p 7).

It is essential to realize that schools are under an obligation to supervise the students adequately especially the students in their charge. In a case, the school fails to offer their duty, they will held proximately liable for foreseeable injuries that are related to the absence of carrying out an effective and adequate supervision. "Mirand, 637 N.E.2d at 266." (Arnold, 2015 p 10). The school has a duty to control all students in the physical custody similar to the duty of parents or guardians when students are at home. Moreover, the school has the duty to exercise the care for students present within the school premises similar to the care that their parents will offer them at home.

Despite the care of duty that the school is to offer for students, however, the students are not students' insurers and cannot expect to offer a reasonable supervision for all students. It is essential to realize that the Montauk High School offered a reasonable care for the students because when Andrew and George were fighting in the cafeteria, the school cautioned them and went to the extent to offer a reasonable punishment by given them a suspension in order to serve as an example to other students. Additionally, the school went to the extent of suggesting to the parent of the students to attend the psychological group discussion of Dr. Ryan to guide them on the appropriate social behavior's conduct.

However, the school cannot control all activities and movements of all students. Therefore, the school cannot be liable to every careless and thoughtless act of a student leading to a situation whereby a student injures another students. See "Stephenson v. City of New York, 978 N.E.2d 1251, 1253 (N.Y. 2012)(quoting Mirand, 637 N.E.2d at 266)." (Arnold, 2015 p 10). The school is not required to offer a constant supervision for high school students where a supervision is not required. "Convey v. City of Rye Sch. Dist., 710 N.Y.S.2d 641, 645 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)." (Arnold, 2015 p 10). Additionally, the school's duty of care does not extend after the school hours and beyond the school premises. "Stephenson, 978 N.E.2d at 1253." (Arnold, 2015 p 10). However, if the injury happens during the school hour, the NY (New York) courts allow the school to extend their duties off the school premises.

It is essential to realize that the injury of Andrew did not happen within the school premises. Moreover, the injury did not happen during the school hour, the injury happened off the school premises and after the school had suspended the two students. Since the injury happens outside the school premises, the school has no duty to offer the care of duty at the time of injury. Moreover, the school has no duty to offer a supervisory service to students at the time of Andrew's injury because the injury is sustained out of the school premises. Thus, the school has no duty to offer duty of care for students after or before the school hours because there is no teacher to supervise the students' conducts.

The case of Stephenson v. City of New York is similar to our case. In the Stephenson case, a student assaulted another student two blocks away from the school before the school started the school duty. However, the school suspended the two students for a prior altercation. The assistant principal attempted to avoid a further altercation by carrying out a dismissal of the students at different hours. The plaintiff pointed out that the other student has threatened him. The outcome of the case reveals that the school does not have to offer a duty of care because the incident happens out of the school hour where there is no teacher to supervise the incident.

Based on the issue of the Andrew's injury, the school was not liable to the injury because the fight between the two students happened after the school had dismissed the two students. Moreover, the fight did not happen within the school premises, the fight happened at the doorstep of Dr. Ryan, the home of the school psychologist off campus. To establish that a negligence has occurred, there must be a duty of care as well as breach of that duty. To determine whether the school has breached its care, there is need to established appropriate duty of care. Although, the school is required to deliver its duty of care to students, nevertheless, the school does not breach its duty of care because the injury that causes Andrew's arms to be broken happens is out of the school premises where the school is not supposed to offer its duty of care to students. Thus, the school is not negligent in its duty of care.

In the case of "Convey v. City of Rye School Dist., 271 A.D.2d 154 (2000)" 'Law Office Memo, 2015 p 12), the judge affirmed that the school performed its duty of care and the student's injuries were not due to lack adequate supervision of students. Although, schools are to offer their duty of care to students, however, they are not students' insurers, they cannot be held liable for unforeseeable injuries. Moreover, the high school students have reached the age where their constant supervision is not required. Moreover, the plaintiff must establish that the school has a sufficient knowledge of the dangerous conduct of the students before a school can be held liable for negligence. Although, the Montauk High School had a sufficient knowledge that the students were about to carry out a dangerous act, nevertheless, the school had already suspended the two students using this as their punishment. Thus, the school is not liable to the injuries that happens to Andrew because the injuries happens after the school has dismissed both students.

Moreover, schools personnel are not required to guide the students against sudden and spontaneous acts on a daily basis. While the Andrew's injuries happen outside the school, the school cannot be reasonably held liable for failure to notify the parents about the student condition at Dr. Ryan office because there is no statutory that makes the school to notify parents in case students are being threatened. Thus, Andrew's parent cannot develop a substantial evidence that that the school is negligent in its duty.

Conclusion

The memo provides a legal advice for the principal of Montauk High School on whether the school is liable to Andrew injuries. The memo has established that school cannot be held liable because the injuries happens outside the school premises after the school has dismissed the two students. The memo has drawn several similar cases where the court has offered verdicts in favor of the schools. The memo has cited several issues to establish that the school is not liable for the Andrew's injuries. First, the injuries happened out of the school premises where the school could not offer a reasonable supervision for the students. Moreover, the school authority has already suspended the students from the school, meanwhile, the school does not have a duty to care for students who are out of its custody. When the injuries happened, Andrew was not in the custody of the school, thus, the school was not liable for his injuries.

The memo advices the principal that the school should not offer a settlement to the parent of Andrew because if Andrew's parents sue the school, they are not likely to win the case since there is no evidence that the school does not carry out its duty of care. Thus, the memo suggests that the threatens of Andrew's parents is an empty bluff, their argument cannot hold ground in the court of law. The memo suggests that the school should continue their normal business and ignore the threaten letter of Andrew's parent.

Reference

Law Office Memo. (2015). Smith & Associate LLP.

Arnold, C.W. (2015). Fundamental of Law Practice: Writing, Analysis, Research and Skills. Law Office Memo.