Video Response: 16-Year-Old Dies in Gym Class Rose-Gaelle Labranche St. Thomas University Video Response: 16-Year-Old Dies in Gym Class There were several underlying factors regarding this very unfortunate situation. The elements surrounding this case would make the school liable for the death of this 16-year-old student. Primarily, the boy had certain special needs and had challenges swimming. Therefore, close supervision must have been provided particularly for this child. There were too many activities going on simultaneously for simply one gym teacher to properly supervise all students in an efficient manner. Furthermore, the absence of a lifeguard was sufficient to cancel swimming activities for the time being. …show more content…
Essex (2012) explains that “negligence is generally viewed as the failure to exercise a reasonable standard of care that results in harm or injury of another person” (p. 167). The teacher owes a duty to supervise the student as the boy was on school grounds in the class. The gym teacher breached that duty because there was a failure to acknowledge the student’s attendance in the class that day. This failure to fulfill the duty caused the death of a student; this death surpasses any injury that could have occurred. In addition to negligence, there was a foreseeability in this situation. Essex (2012) defines foreseeability as “the ability of the teacher or administrator to predict or anticipate that a certain activity or situation may prove harmful to students” (p. 158). In terms of this situation at hand, the use of good judgement would have enabled the gym teacher to calculate that the elements surrounding the environment within the gym that day may have been harmful to students. In the case of Flanigan v. Canton, Osbourne (2009) explains that “the court ultimately sided with Flanagan and reasoned that because the students were misbehaving the day of the incident, the teacher owed a greater duty to supervise the students, especially because their conduct was foreseeable” (p. 3). Based on the lack of supervision and the multiple activities concurrently taking place, this case mirrors this situation regarding the gym teacher in conjunction to the death of a
No greater obligation is placed on school officials than to protect the children in their charge from foreseeable dangers, whether those dangers arise from the careless acts or intentional transgressions of others. Although the overarching mission of a board of education is to educate, its first imperative must be to do no harm to the children in its care. A board of education must take reasonable measures to assure that the teachers and administrators who stand as surrogate parents during the day are educating, not endangering, and protecting, not exploiting, vulnerable children (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003).
Mr McKinnon must have, under the assumption of risk, known that there was a possibility for the risk of injury resulting in paralysis. Over data collected over a period of six years, showed that a total of 12 players in the rugby league code [1997 – 2002] have suffered from spinal injuries (Carmody D, et.al 2005.) This assumes that Alex must have known the possible risks and under the Civil Liability Act 2002, section 5G, “injured persons presumed to be aware of obvious risks.” Thus resulting in the assumption that he knew what could happen in such a high contact sport. Once again, this can be seen in the case Cafest v. Tombleson [2003] NSWCA 210. In this case Julianne Tombleson went roller-skating and broke her right wrist, claiming that she was not properly informed of the risks involved with the activity. However, the court found that there was a myriad of pre-emptive warnings to skaters such as highly visible signs that stated protection gear available for hire and that the rink centre will not be held legally liable to any injuries that may be sustained. This confirms and rectifies the concept of volenti non fit injuria. If the risks are clearly set out and known, one could not claim negligence for compensation, relating to the fact that Alex indisputably would have realised the potential
The leading issue of the WA DoE Duty of Care for Students Policy is stated in Section 1.A “Teaching staff owe a duty to take reasonable care for the safety and welfare of students whilst students are involved in school activities or are present for the purposes of a school activity” (WA DoE, 2007, p. 3). This means teachers are legally responsible to protect students from reasonably foreseeable risks of harm whenever a relationship exists between a teacher and a student. Some examples include in the playground, the classroom or during a school excursion. The second important issue addressed in the WA DoE Duty of Care for Students Policy is how teachers use their professional judgement to assess dangers, guard against risk of injury to students, and determine levels of care required, based on their knowledge of individual students and the type of school activity undertaken.... ...
There are defenses against negligence lawsuits for sports medicine professionals. The first of which is assumption of risk, where the athlete voluntarily and knowingly assumes the risk of an activity through an expressed or implied agreement. This can be done by having a form signed during pre-season paperwork. This does not forgive a clinician of reckless conduct, however. Assumption of risk is for the usual risks, and the athlete by singing assumes responsibility for injury that occurs as a result of the inherent dangers of sport. It is crucial that athletes be informed that risk for injury exists and understand the nature of that risk. Another defense is an act of God, which are events that are outside of human control. This includes natural disasters, weather, and other environmental concerns in which no one can be held responsible. If the incident was not foreseeable, this is another defense a clinician could use against a negligence lawsuit. Foreseeability is based upon whether the clinician at fault could have realistically anticipated the consequences that would result because of their conduct. In order for the clinician to be held liable, the harm must foreseeably arise from the negligent act. Good Samaritan laws provide limited security against legal liability should an accident arise while providing care during an emergency, in good faith, without expected compensation, and without misconduct or gross negligence. This usually does not apply to someone providing care during regular employment. It was created for situations in which a volunteer comes to the aid of an injured person during an emergency in order to reduce bystanders ' hesitation to assist because of the fear of a lawsuit. The individual providing care must ...
...dividuals from themselves. Moreover, a failure to anticipate the potential negligence of other individuals, particularly where the harms are potentially quite high as is the case in motor vehicle accidents, is probably a failure of the duty of care that one holds for one’s self. A reasonable person would probably anticipate and take precautions against these harms and it is important that the legal system is consistent in the application of the principles of reasonable precautions.
In a school setting, negligence is the most common of the three torts seen in our courts (Decker, 2011).
I agree that teachers must think before they act and process the best consequence to the action that he or she will or will not do in class. The book makes a point on talking about how teachers must thoughtfully decide if what they are doing every single day. I believe that that is a crucial quality every teacher must have in order to avoid major issues in the classroom. It is amazing how much can change when a teacher, or anyone, thinks about what they are doing before they do it and what are the possible consequences are based on their action. Better than thinking about it, if they talk to one another, as teachers, on how they should act, this would help them even more to make the right decision. I also agree teachers deserve the right to due process, just like everyone else in their profession. Being a teacher is very difficult, and it is very important that teachers are not constantly scared to lose their job with one bad choice. There are so many parents out there who will immediately try to get the teacher fired in any way they can in order for their child to be happy which is very threatening to teachers everywhere. The fact that due process is given to teachers is extremely important for the sanity of teacher’s minds and their performance as teachers. Lastly, I agree with tort liability because teachers must be on high alert at all times with their classroom. Any possibilities of injury in the classroom must be thought about by the teacher and prevented in anyway. Teachers are one hundred percent liable to what goes on in their classroom and they need to pay attention to all kinds of behavior that could lead to danger. Teachers never should be able to say that it was the student’s fault that they were injured in their classroom with their
However, negligence and duty of care is applied slightly different to spectator of an event than to the participants of the event. If a participant of a sport was injured and able to sue for negligence, no club would be willing to take the risk of paying damages to every player, and as a result there would be no clubs. That is why proving negligence towards a player is determined by whether the injury occurred within the normal and accepted constraints of not only the rules, but common rule breaches also. This is because the player is voluntarily assuming the risks of playing the sport. This is the defence that many defendants use against plaintiffs attempting to pursue legal action. Volenti non fit injuria is the name of this defence, which literally translates to “no harm can be done to one who consents”. This means that while injury may be done in the normal course of a sport, the law does not recognise it as harm worthy of legal remedy. The issue in this, however, is knowing what exactly is covered by volenti non fit injuria. According to case law precedent, there are injuries that are an inevitable part of some rough sports, and this is covered by the volenti defence. However, this is not the same as injuries that have occurred as a result of careless or inadequate supervision or
Negligence can be defined as any conduct that is ‘careless or unintentional in nature and entails a breach of any contractual duty or duty of care in tort owed to another person or persons’.(Godsell, 1993 P23)
In realation to this case I shall put before you the case of DPP V Newbury and Jones (1970) AC 500 (HL). Lord Salmon stated; ‘ A defendant was guilty of manslaughter if it can be proved that he intentionally did an act which was unlawful and if the act in question was either unlawful or dangerous’. The resulting verdict in this case was finding both of the the defendant’s guilty of manslaughter even though in their defence they stated that they did not forsee that their act may cause harm to another, the court held; ‘There is no requirement that the defendant foresees that some harm will come from their
Since the 1990's Tom C. Clark High School, a school in northside independent school district, aquatic athletes have had to go to early morning and late night practice. This inconvenience to coaches students and parent could be changed by adding an aquatic gym at clark high school. The reasons for this proposal range from overcrowding , to financial reasons, the advantages are in fact endless.
In discussing negligent failure to discipline and explaining how Criminal Justice agencies can limit their liability. In order to discuss negligent failure to discipline, you have to understand what negligent failure means. Negligent failure is not taking care of someone or something, the result of which is harm to that person or thing. Negligent is failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence is accidental as distinguished from intentional torts or from crimes, but a crime can also constitute negligence, such as reckless driving.
It can be argued that negligence should never be enough to warrant a sufficiency of culpability for a serious offence when they did not foresee they might bring about the result of the offence. There are various reasons to support the idea that culpability lies in choosing to act wrongly, therefore negligence should not be enough to be convicted of a serious criminal offence.
This includes physical education, technical education, family and consumer sciences, science classes that include laboratory projects, and technical courses where special needs students are present. Not only are teachers in these areas responsible to hold the same standards of supervision, but also are responsible for explaining the uses and mechanics of the machine and tools with which students will engage during the course of the class (Seitz, 1971). Beyond those special interest classrooms, there are also special situations that administrations should pay extra attention to, which include field trips, movement between classes, activities at school-sponsored activities, dances, athletic contests, and the school bus (Seitz, 1971). These types of situations would clearly fall into negligent liability, since the teacher doesn’t prepare for risks “inherent in certain activities” (Ripps, 1975, p.
Negligence is a concept that was passed from Great Britain to the United States. It arose out of common law, which is made up of court decisions that considered whether a defendant had an obligation to act with greater care. It is conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm and involves a failure to fulfill a duty that causes injury to another. Many torts depend on whether there was intent but negligence does not. Negligence looks to see whether the person had a duty to act with care. It emphasizes the need for people to act reasonably in society. This is important because accidents will happen. Negligence helps the law establish whether these accidents could have been avoided, if there was a breach of duty to act reasonably, and if that breach was the cause of injury to that person. By focusing on the conduct rather than the intent of the defendant, the tort of negligence reflects society’s desire to