Law & Education Class Notes
8/28/08
Self scheduled take home exam.
STATE ACTION – under 14th amend. Applies to public schools – not private.
CH. 1:
· Is there a right to education?
o In NJ State Constitution: state should maintain a thorough and efficient education
o In US Constitution – no fundamental right to education
§ No reference to it
§ San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez
· Ct found no right to education under US constitution
o Every state has an educational provision that gives language providing that a right to education exists
o Pierce v. Society of Sisters
§ Established that you do not have to send your child to a public school – you have the option to go to catholic or private schools; HOWEVER, those other schools must be up to the standards that the state provides.
o Congress cannot directly force states to pass laws regarding education; however, they can hold out money to give to the states if they do pass these laws.
§ Congress says: ‘If you want your share of the money, you must meet certain requirements.’
§ Taxing and spending power – in US Constitution
· Structure of Education:
o Federal government plays a role
§ Can give money for the general welfare
§ Congress creates acts – and then to get the money, congress will put requirements to conform to if you want the money.
· For example – IDEA act
o State government plays a role
§ Can provide aid to towns that need help (Camden)
o Many school districts (LEAs – local education agencies)
§ Subdivision of state government
§ Can be sections in a city, a county, etc.
§ Financing?
· Municipalities often give money to schools through property taxes
§ School districts are operated independently from the municipality in most districts
§ 566 NJ school districts
CH. 2:
STATE NEGLIGENCE LAW PRINCIPLES:
A. Extent of the Duty to Supervise
Glaser v. Emporia Unified Sch. Dist No. 253
· Facts
o Appellant, a seventh-grader, was hit by a car when he was chased off of school grounds by another student before daily classes had started. Appellant filed a personal injury action against appellees, the school district and a teacher. The trial court dismissed the claim on summary judgment, holding that appellees did not owe a duty to supervise appellant before he was in the school building.
· Issue
o Whether the school district owed a duty to Glaser under the circumstances
· Rule of law:
o In Honeycutt case, it was established:
§ Threshold req’t for the application of the restatement second of torts 324A (1964) is a showing that D undertook, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another. In order to meet this requirement, the evidence must show D did more than act, but through affirmative action assumed an obligation or intended to render services for the benefit of another.
· Holding
o Affirmed. Ct held there was no showing that a duty to supervise the child existed.
· Discussion:
o There was evidence that, whether or not appellant’s classroom was still locked that morning, appellant had the option of waiting inside the school building where the school provided supervision before classes began. Appellant was injured after he ran off the school grounds, across a parking area, and into a city street. Appellee district never undertook to render services calculated to protect or supervise appellant, either pursuant to any school policies or any other promise to act. Nor was appellant under the control or in the custody of the district at the time of the accident.
· Concept of in loco parentis:
o At common law, school officials are said to stand in loco parentis, in the place of parents, to their students, with similar powers and responsibilities.
B. Supervision During Extracurricular Activities
Cerny v. Cedar Bluffs Junior/Senior Pub. Sch.
· Facts:
o Cerny alleged that while participating in athletics as a student at the School, he sustained personal injuries as a result of the negligence of the School and its coaching staff. Said negligent of coaches to allow him to reenter game after head injury and then allowing him to participate in contact drill pract. Several days later.
o In its evaluation of whether the coaches’ conduct conformed to the standard of care, the district court found that the evidence showed that the assistant coach was familiar with the signs of a concussion. The district court found additional facts that showed that the coaches had met the standard of care regarding evaluating the student at intervals and making their determination whether to permit the student to reenter the game. The district court found that when the student removed himself from the game, he told the assistant coach that he was fuzzy and had tingling in his neck. The district court found that the coach talked to the student continuously for 5 to 6 minutes and observed that he did not have a vacant stare, responded normally to conversation, did not appear to be disoriented or confused, and did not complain of nausea, headache, or blurred vision. The record contained an expert’s testimony, in which he stated that the evaluations and actions taken were reasonable for Nebraska endorsed coaches on September 15, 1995.
· Issue:
o Whether the school was negligent (through the coaching staff) when it allowed P to reenter game after head injury and participate in practice a few days later.
· Rule of Law
o The applicable standard of care by which the conduct of the School’s coaching staff should be judged is that of a reasonably prudent person holding a Nebraska teaching certificate with a coaching endorsement.
· Holding
o Affirmed. Stated: “district court’s findings that the coaches’ conduct met the standard of care and that the School was not negligent are supported by evidence and are not clearly wrong. Pursuant to our standard of review, we determine that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the district court’s judgment.”
· Discussion
o Although ct recognized that the record contained evidence that could controvert lower ct’s findings of fact, this ct was required to consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the School.
C. School Shootings
D. Issues Relating to Race and Ethnicity
Relevant Federal Statutes:
· 20 U.S.C. § 7151
o Federal Gun-Free Requirements in Elementary and Secondary Schools
· 20 U.S.C. § 7912
o The “Un
ble.
NEGLIGENCE AND INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
Kavanagh v. Trustees of Boston Univ.
· Facts:
o Player was punched during an intercollegiate college basketball game. Athlete who threw the punch was immediately ejected.
o Player (Kavanagh) contended that Folk’s status as a scholarship athlete playing for the university made him an agent of the university and that the university is therefore vicariously liable for any torts committed by Folk while playing for the university’s basketball team.
o Kavanagh also claimed that BU breached a duty to protect him from the allegedly foreseeable assault and battery by Folk b.c there was a “special relationship” between D and Kavanagh.
· Issue:
o Whether BU was liable for the torts of their basketball player bc the player could be seen as an agent for the university.
o Whether university failed to protected P from allegedly foreseeable assault and battery.
· Holding:
o No. Ct found that a student’s status as a student did not, alone, make a student an “employee” or “servant” of BU.
§ Doctrine of Respondeat Superior: didn’t render BU liable for the acts of its students. Scholarship students would not be treated any differently from paying students.
o As for the allegation that the university failed to protect him from the allegedly foreseeable assault and battery, ct found that it did not need to enter the debate, as none of the authorities that favored a “special relationship” had opined that the relationship extended to athletes from another school.
o In addition, there was no showing of a reasonable foreseeability of harm. The player who threw the punch had no history suggestive of potential violence on or off the court.
· Rule of Law:
o Relationships exist in several situations, based either on responsibilities imposed by statute or common law (or both). A special relationship, when derived from common law, is predicated on a P’s reasonable expectations and reliance that D will anticipate harmful acts of third persons and take appropriate measures to protect P from harm.”
· Discussion
o Foreseeability must mean something more than awareness of the ever-present possibility that an athlete may become overly excited and engage in physical contact beyond the precise boundaries of acceptably aggressive play.
o Mere negligence on the part of a player does not suffice to impose liability for injuries inflicted by that player during competition. Rather, an injured player must show that the other player’s conduct amounted to recklessness before the law will impose liability.
