Case Study Analysis Introduction

Parents and their children have the legal right to be free from danger in the school place environment, including school provided transportation (buses). In this case, Alice was sexually assaulted by Chris, a student with a known history of sexual assault. The usual attendant riding the bus was absent on the day of the assault and the school did not supply a replacement. Having a window of opportunity, Chris used it to assault Alice. The protective plan that the district was supposed to use was not enforced. For that reason, the plaintiffs have cause to sue.

The Parties

Alice and her parents are the plaintiffs and the school district is the defendant. The plaintiffs are suing for damages related to negligence and willful and wanton misconduct. The cause of the suit is the fact that the daughter was assaulted by a student during a period on the bus when there was no attendant even though there was a prevention plan in place for the student who did the assaulting. This indicates the duty was breached by the school district.

The Issue

The legal issues to be decided are whether the school district was negligent in not providing a substitute attendant or whether it was willful and demonstrated wanton misconduct. Duty, breach, causation and damages/injury are all to be considered as well. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) states that “each public agency must take steps, including the provision of supplementary aids and services determined appropriate and necessary by the child’s IEP Team, to provide nonacademic...

Moreover, parents should have been made aware of this risk. This has been demonstrated both in S.G. v. Rockford Board of Education and in Doe ex rel. Ortega-Piron v. the Chicago Board of Education. Moreover, federal law under IDEA stipulates that schools must provide adequate supervision of students.
The Arguments

The school district was negligent in not supplying a substitute bus attendant on the day that Alice was raped by Chris. As Dagget (2014) shows, schools are expected to provide “reasonable supervision of special students”—and the school district deliberately failed to do so on the day that the usual aide was absent. The fact that the school district did have an aide scheduled to the bus as part of its normal supervision operations shows that it was aware of its duty and was committed to fulfilling that duty. The problem occurred when the aide failed to present. Because it was not known whether the aide informed the school district of the absence ahead of time and thus the school district should have taken responsibility for filling the spot, the court cannot rule on this matter until sufficient evidence is presented. However, the fact that the bus driver proceeded without an aide should be indication enough…