Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 11, 2024

by  • 

— In Virginia, the Court of Appeals of Virginia denied the Prince William County School Board immunity in a lawsuit claiming gross negligence by campus educators.  The case arose out of injuries sustained by a victimized special needs student in high school.  A fellow-student with special needs with “a known, troubled record involving harmful, sexual, and abusive behavior… transferred from another high school”  with a notice that he “would pose a danger to other students.”  Even so, however, the parents alleged that the fellow-student “was placed in several (special needs) classes …sexually assaulted (the victim) by touching her breasts and legs, kissing her, and trying to take her outside of the school building to perform other sexual acts on her.”  Many of these acts occurred in the classroom and many of “the assaults occurred in open view of other people.”  The parents of the victimized student asserted “a single count of gross negligence against the School Board Employees in their official capacities only.”  The members of the school board argued that a lawsuit “against them in their official capacities amounted to a suit against the School Board (and that) the School Board is entitled to sovereign immunity.”  The lower court agreed, dismissing the lawsuit.  On appeal the appellate court reversed, sending the case to trial to “to determine whether the alleged actions taken by the (school) amounted to gross negligence.”  The appellate court made three points.  First, under Virginia law  “Virginia school boards should be considered municipal corporations rather than arms of the state…. not entitled to a claim of sovereign immunity.”  Second, ““Official capacity” suits are effectively suits against the entity for whom the individual works and are separate and distinct from “individual capacity” suits where the individual is sued for the actions he took while acting within the scope of his employment.”  Third, a school board “should be immune for acts of simple negligence, but should not be immune for acts of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Immunity cannot be asserted when gross negligence, rather than simple negligence, is alleged.”  At trial, the parents must prove that school officials “acting in their official capacity, committed gross negligence because they were aware that a violent student had been accepted into the intellectual disability class, as well as evidence that the abuse (the victim) suffered occurred in plain view of the teacher in the classroom.”  Drasovean v. Walts

— In Arizona, a study released by state auditors revealed areas in which school safety was lacking.  “State auditors said not a single one of the schools they reviewed had fully implemented their emergency operations plans, a failure that a new report says could affect their ability to protect students in emergencies.”

— In Michigan, the Michigan legislature has approved a series of new polices to implement stronger school safety requirements and mental health assessments.  The legislation also addresses the response of schools during an emergency.  House Bill 5659 and House Bill 5660 “(codify) a School Safety and Mental Health Commission (to) specifically examine and make recommendations to improve school safety measures and mental health support.”  “Under House Bills 4095 and 4096, all schools in Michigan would be required to adopt uniform terminology for emergency response starting in the 2026-2027 school year.”

— In Texas, the legislature has introduced has introduced House Bill (HB) 62, that authorizes the use of remote-operated aerial drones to enhance school security.  “According to the bill text, “Requirements … can also be met via at least one remote-human-operated aerial device … deployed or contracted by the district at each district campus providing less lethal interdiction capability by means of air-based irritant delivery or other mechanisms for every 200 students enrolled at the district.””

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 9, 2024

by  • 

— In New York, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by parents of children who were injured by a fellow-student during rides on the school bus.  The case involved students from kindergarten through second grade who were victimized by a male student “who rode the bus with the (students), and included, inter alia, exposing himself to them, touching the genitals of one of the (students), asking one of the (students) to touch his genitals, and attempting to have sex with one of the (students), or rubbing his body against hers.”  The parents claimed that the school district “failed to protect students from the fellow student’s sexual misconduct” under a clearly established rule of law that “schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (and a) school bus operator owes the very same duty to the students entrusted to its care and custody.”  The appellate court agreed, holding that liability depends on whether or not the school “had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated.”  The case could not be dismissed.  The claims of the parents were appropriate for a jury to determine whether school officials “had actual or constructive notice of fellow’s student’s prior misconduct.”  Porschia C. by Melissa A.C. v. Sodus Central School District

— In Alabama, the Scottsboro City Schools Board of Education has approved a series of upgrades to its campus safety policy.  The details are kept confidential, although “getting a resource officer in each school (is) our immediate concern.”  In addition, special attention is being given to “small safety measures that have been slacked on, including keeping classroom doors locked and teachers wearing the proper identification …(because) it’s the little things that can make a big difference when you are talking about the safety of our children.”

— In Texas, officials in the Boerne ISD are removing hallway doors leading to restrooms at one of its high schools “in an effort to cut down on vaping incidents.”  “Possession of a vaping device is prohibited by state law for those under the age of 21. Possession or use of any e-cigarette device is also prohibited in public schools by the Texas Education Code and the BISD Student Code of Conduct.”  “All stall doors inside the restrooms were left in place.”

— In Tennessee, the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) “wants to remind all parents and guardians that bringing firearms onto school property is illegal.”  According to a social media post by the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office, a fourth arrest this school year has been made in connection with firearms on campus “involving a parent.”  Tennessee’s concealed carry law allows most citizens to carry a loaded handgun without a permit, as long as they meet certain requirements.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 5, 2024

by  • 

— In Illinois, the Appellate Court of Illinois reversed the judgment of the circuit court and affirmed the decision of a school board to impose a one-year expulsion upon a student for bringing a fake handgun to school.  The decision arose out of the incident in which a school administrator discovered a loaded pellet gun in the locker of the student.  Believing it to be a real firearm, school officials signaled the alarm, implementing the steps required under school policy to secure the weapon, effectively disrupting the school day.  The student was suspended.  Later, the school board imposed a one-year expulsion based upon a Report by the Hearing Officer.  The student argued and the circuit court agreed that “the expulsion be expunged from his disciplinary record (because) the District had not exhausted all appropriate and available interventions before recommending expulsion.”  The appellate court reversed applying the rule that “the state, having compelled students to attend school and thus associate with the criminal few—or perhaps merely the immature and unwise few—closely and daily, thereby owes those students a safe and secure environment.”  Based upon this duty, “we would still see no abuse of discretion in Board’s decision to expel… First, (the student) committed a serious offense by bringing a lookalike gun to school in knowing violation of school rules. Second, (the student) had a lengthy disciplinary history that, while comprised of largely minor infractions, suggested a consistent refusal to follows rules and respect authority. Third, (the student’s)  decision to bring a lookalike gun could reasonably cause fellow students to be fearful of his ongoing presence at school, thereby affecting the delivery of education services. Fourth, the Board’s selection of a one-year expulsion is a severe sanction. While not the harshest punishment available, which would have been a two-year expulsion, the legislature has cautioned that removing a student from his established learning environment is to be avoided if at all possible. And finally, for that same reason, expulsion would not be in A.A.’s best interests. When we consider these factors as a whole, we do not see an abuse of discretion.”  A.A. by and through Pasillas v. Board of Education, Summit School District No. 104

— In Georgia, school officials in the Barrow County Board of Education received input from the community on school safety policies in the aftermath of the death of two students and two teachers in the shooting at Apalachee High School.  The gist of the feedback is that “there is a lack of urgency from the board of education.”

— In Washington State, legislators are considering two proposals to enhance school safety.  Senate Bill 5003 would require the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction to create a school security and preparedness infrastructure grant program to encourage improvements in campus safety.  Senate Bill 5004 would require schools to update emergency response systems to include panic alarms or alert buttons.

— In Alabama, legislators are considering a state-wide ban on cell phones in schools.  House Bill 65 “would require the Alabama Board of Education to create a model policy that, at a minimum, prohibits public K-12 students from using an electronic communication device during the school day. The bill allows exceptions in case of an emergency or if using the device is part of a student’s Individualized Education Program or 504 plan.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 4, 2024

by  • 

— In New York, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of a case involving a student-on-student assault in which the parents alleged “negligent supervision due to (school’s) failure to protect (the injured student) from the assault.”  The lawsuit arose when “(the injured student) was walking toward the cafeteria for lunch when she noticed (the assailant) glaring at her. (The injured student)  continued into the cafeteria, at which point she was approached and assaulted by (the assailant), who started punching .. and slamming “(the injured student’s)  head into a pillar…(the assailant’s) friend then joined in the attack.”  Educators argued for dismissal and the lower court agreed because “the attack was not foreseeable, nor was (the school’s) alleged negligence a proximate cause of E.E.’s injuries.”  The appellate court reversed citing the rule of law in which “(s)chools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and… Evidence of the foreseeability of a student-perpetrated assault may include prior specific knowledge of the student’s propensity to engage in such conduct.”  Liability depends on “whether, under all the circumstances, the chain of events that followed the negligent act or omission was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the school’s negligence.”  The appellate court ruled that what is important is “(t)he issue is not the speed of the punch, but the circumstances leading up to and surrounding that conduct.”  Therefore, reversal was required due to the record that showed that “(the assailant) had a school disciplinary history of 18 incidents…which resulted in numerous detentions and suspensions. Of these 18 incidents, it appears that at least five involved acts of violence…One of the suspensions was for lighting a fellow student’s hair on fire, while another suspension was for her previous attack on (the injured student)…the evidence … was sufficient to raise triable issues of fact.  T.E. v. South Glens Falls Central School District

— Nationally, “the U.S. Department of Education is calling on every state, district, and school to adopt policies that guide the use of student personal devices in schools, and today is issuing a new resource.”  The resource, Planning Together: A Playbook for Student Personal Device Policies, “offers a model process that education leaders can use to design policies for use of cell phones and other personal devices in schools alongside educators, students, parents, and caregivers.”

— In Maryland, “Harford County Government and Harford County Public Schools announced a partnership on Tuesday to improve security measures and safety in the schools.”  This comes after a fatal shooting in an area high school.  The  focus of the collaboration will be adding “advanced weapons detection systems, enhanced camera systems, door alarms and other security upgrades.”  In addition, “the funding includes adding three new school resource officers to work at some of the county’s elementary schools. SRO’s are already working in each of the district’s high schools and middle schools.”

— In Illinois, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency and Office of Homeland Security is launching a school safety and prevention program designed to “empower students to take an active role in creating safer school environments.”  The program is managed by Southern Illinois University Edwardsville and EdVenture Partners.  It “challenges high school students to design and implement peer-developed projects, tools, and strategies aimed at preventing targeted violence and hate within their schools and communities, using approaches that they believe will be most effective.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for November 25, 2024

by  • 

— In Oklahoma, the Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma upheld a liability verdict against a school for negligence and negligent supervision after an assault upon a student by a bully.  The assault followed  repeated bullying and verbal harassment by another student.  Reports of this state of affairs were made “on multiple occasions,” to the victim’s teacher and to the school Principal.  “No action was taken to stop (this) recurring behavior.”  The school argued that the Principal “did not consider any prior incidents between (the victim) and (bully) to amount to “bullying,” (but)… teacher at the school testified after the assault that the “conflict between (the victim) and (bully) had been brewing for weeks.”  Testimony established that the bully “walked up to (the victim) and immediately punched (him) in the chin… holding him in a headlock punching him in the forehead, after which (the bully) flipped (the victim) upside-down, tossed him headfirst onto the concrete and threw one final punch into the back of his head.  All of this was observed by a teacher on duty to monitor students, who was seen on video, “standing stationary in the background through the majority of (the bully’s) physical assault … making no efforts to intervene until…she directed (another student) “to break it up.””  The law governing this lawsuit required the victim to prove (1) the school owed a duty owed to protect him from injury; (2) a failure to properly exercise or perform that duty; and (3) injuries that were the proximate result of the school’s failure to perform its duty.  The appellate opined that, “foreseeability is the most important consideration (and) can extend to the actions of third parties…if it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to another through the foreseeable act of a third person.”  The appellate court affirmed liability because, “the record supports (the victim’s) contention that multiple employees of the School District … were aware of (the) persistent bullying (and) the repeated attempts by (the victim), his parents, and his teacher …to report (the) persistent bullying … and clear threats of violence… (and) multiple incidents of harassment and bullying which were formally documented by school administration… further contributing to the foreseeability of (the bully’s) conduct.”  Brown v. Muldrow Public Schools

— In Maryland, new guidelines for Active Shooter drills were released by the Maryland Center for School Safety.  “The new guidelines are designed to prohibit trauma-inducing elements like imitation of gunfire or explosions. The guidelines also require school systems to notify parents in advance when students will be practicing what to do in the event of an active shooter in their buildings.”

— In Iowa, “school districts are getting $70.5 million to increase security” after the State created the School Safety Improvement Fund.  “Districts approved could get up to $50,000 per school building to fix vulnerabilities.”  “The funding also builds upon the foundation of the Governor’s School Safety Bureau to support all schools and law enforcement partners with prevention, training and response strategies. A portion of the funding will be utilized to implement technology and tools including proactive social media scanning software, an anonymous reporting tool, digital critical incident mapping and specialized training.”

— In Ohio, “the number of school districts in Ohio that allow staff to be armed quadrupled, with 14% of the state’s districts now participating, according to the Ohio School Safety Center.  This policy is particularly compelling in rural school districts without sufficient access to police resource in the event of a crisis event.  One singular school district is arming its teachers and staff “as a measure of assistance for the single resource officer for eight schools across the district.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for November 22, 2024

by  • 

— In Georgia, the Court of Appeals of Georgia ruled that a teacher/high school basketball coach, who was charged with second degree murder after a student died during practice, was not entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution under Georgia School Safety Act.  The incident involved a conditioning drill which “required the students to complete a number of drills, including stretching, running a mile, planks, and running up and down the bleacher stairs.”  “During the last exercise, which involved running up and down the bleacher steps, (the student) collapsed and ultimately died.”   The coach was “indicted for second-degree murder, cruelty to children in the second degree, involuntary manslaughter, and reckless conduct.”  The educator asserted immunity under Georgia law (the Georgia School Safety Act) that provides, “an educator shall be immune from criminal liability for any act or omission concerning, relating to, or resulting from the discipline of any student or the reporting of any student for misconduct, provided that the educator acted in good faith.”  The court denied immunity.   The court ruled that, “(t)here is no dispute that in conducting the basketball session, (the coach) was discharging her duties in educating students and retained broad judgment in planning the safe conduct of the session and in deciding whether any safety hazards existed…. however, there is no indication that (the coach) took any actions to impose order or control over the students; rather, (the coach) was engaged in managing and supervising the students through her presence as a coach during a routine training session at the time of (the student’s) death.  If we adopted the position advocated by (the coach), the immunity afforded under (the Georgia School Safety Act) would essentially extend to any act of an educator in the course of performing his or her professional duties — an interpretation we find is broader than the language the General Assembly has adopted.”  Asekere v. State

— In Pennsylvania, school officials, the teacher’s union, and parents in Philadelphia are raising the alarm on school district policies after a middle school student stabbed two teachers’ aides.  At issue how the student got pass the metal detector, in use at the school.  The teacher’s union asserts that the incident is “due to really an epic administrative failure.”  “There was no lockdown announcement immediately made, but a paraprofessional… went door-to-door to tell teachers to lock their doors” while the student was in the building after the stabbings.

— In Florida, the State Board of Education approved new state-wide standards that require “school districts to make available a training for parents and guardians on the state app FortifyFL, including the consequences for making a threat or false report.”  The Board also announced its intention to “monitor school districts and public schools for compliance with school safety requirements.”

— In Oregon, local agencies in Redmond “renewed their dedication to the Safe Schools Alliance, a partnership between schools, law enforcement, and public health agencies focused on enhancing safety measures in the face of threats or violence. The 26-year-old alliance remains a vital resource for fostering a secure learning environment.”