Applying the doctrine of acting in loco parentis in situations involving a school district's minor students

A high school student who was a minor [Student] committed suicide while at home. Earlier that day [Student] had been [1] been "discharged" from school and [2] suspended for disciplinary infractions. Alleging negligence, breach of its in loco parentis duty, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful death, Student's mother [Parent] sued the School District, BOCES and certain named school officials [Defendants].

Parent, among other things alleged that Student committed suicide as a result of the failure of Defendants to provide proper supervision, bullying endured by Student, and improperly suspending Student. Supreme Court granted branches of Defendants' separate motions for summary judgment, dismissing certain causes of action insofar as asserted against each of them.

Parent appealed the Supreme Court's ruling but the Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court's decision insofar as appealed from. The court explained that under the doctrine of acting in loco parentis with respect to its minor students, a school district owes a special duty to such students themselves and it "will be liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision."

Noting that schools are not insurers of the safety of their students and the duty they owe to their students derives from their physical custody and control over the students, the Appellate Division opined that a school's custodial duty ceases once the student has passed out of the school's orbit of authority and the parent or guardian is perfectly free to reassume control over the child's protection, citing Vernali v Harrison Cent. School Dist., 51 AD3d 782. 

Although "[g]enerally, a school cannot be held liable for injuries that occur off school property and beyond the orbit of its authority," the Appellate Division's decision notes that a school's duty to its students continues and is breached if the student is released without further supervision into "a forseeably hazardous setting it had a hand in creating."

Opining that Defendants had established "their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the [Student] committed suicide when he was not on school property and no longer in their custody or under their control" and that the Defendants did not release the Student "into a foreseeably hazardous situation they had a hand in creating."

The Appellate Division's decision concludes by observing that [1] Defendants established their prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they did not assume a separate special duty of care to protect Student and guard against him committing suicide and [2] Defendants lacked sufficient notice of the possibility of the Student's committing suicide to be liable for a breach of any such special duty.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision.

 

Summaries of recent decisions posted on the Internet by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings [OATH]

                Click on text highlighted in color to access the text described.

 

Personnel

ALJ recommends termination of employment for one correction officer and 50 to 60 days’ suspension for the other officers for misconduct.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Kevin F. Casey found that three correction officers drank alcohol while on duty, two officers tampered with evidence, one officer used an unauthorized cell phone, and two officers made false statements to interviewers by denying that they consumed alcohol on duty.

Dep’t of Correction v. Wilson, Cameron, Williams, and Winfrey, OATH Index Nos. 117/22, 118/22, 119/22, 349/22, 415/22, and 487/22 (Mar. 4, 2022), adopted in part,modified on penalty in part, Comm’r Dec. (May 11, 2022).

Read more aboutDep’t of Correction v. Wilson, Cameron, Williams, and Winfrey

 

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State set out as an e-book. For more about this electronic handbook, click HERE.  Click to Read a FREE excerpt (requires Adobe Reader). 

 

Human Rights

Respondents found to have discriminated by failing to provide an accessible entrance and a reasonable accommodation.

OATH Administrative Law Judge Ingrid M. Addison found that respondents H&M and a property management company discriminated against a disabled complainant by failing to provide an accessible entrance that afforded full and equal enjoyment, on equal terms and conditions as able-bodied persons, and by failing to provide complainant and other disabled persons with a reasonable accommodation, in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law.

Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel. McKnight v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. & BJW Realty LLC et al., OATH Index No. 905/20 (Mar. 31, 2022).

Read more about Comm’n on Human Rights ex rel. McKnight v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz L.P. & BJW Realty LLC et al.

The Discipline Book - A concise guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees in New York State set out as an e-book. For more about this electronic handbook, click HERE.   Click to Read a FREE excerpt (requires Adobe Reader).

A Reasonable Disciplinary Penalty Under the Circumstances - The text of this publication focuses on determining an appropriate disciplinary penalty to be imposed on an employee in the public service in instances where the employee has been found guilty of misconduct or incompetence. For more information click HERE. Click to Read a FREE excerpt (requires Adobe Reader).  

 

 

 

Civics and Science: Contemporary Issues for Civil Democracy

Dr. Robert A. Michaels, NYPPL's Science Consultant, has published a new book focusing on contemporary issues of critical importance to American democracy.  

The book explores, in a strictly non-partisan manner, the nexus between civics and science, identifying contemporary issues of critical importance for American democracy. 

It promotes objective, clear thinking toward evidence-based decision making in a range of important issue areas.  Dr. Michaels is a politically unaffiliated observer of politics.  His analysis is rigorous, and his writing engaging and personal.

Available in a Kindle Edition [$4.99] and in a paperback hard copy format [$19.99].  For additional information about this work and to order your copy from Amazon, click HERE.

Resolving a tie vote by the NYC Board of Trustees of Article 1-B considering a firefighter's application for accidental disability retirement

A New York City firefighter challenged denial of a firefighter's application for Accidental Disability Retirement [ADR] following a tie vote by the Board of Trustees of the Article 1-B Pension in the course of its considering the firefighter's application for ADR.

In this appeal the Appellate Division sustained the rejection of the firefighter's application for ADR after a "tie vote" by the Board of Trustees resulted in the firefighter receiving Ordinary Disability Retirement [ODR], explaining:

1. A firefighter becomes eligible for Accidental Disability Retirement [ADR] benefits when a medical examination and investigation results in a finding that the firefighter is physically or mentally incapacitated for the performance of city-service as a natural and proximate result of an injury received in city-service; and

2. If the Medical Board concludes that firefighter is disabled, it must next determine whether the disability is "a natural and proximate result of an accidental injury received in such city-service" and certify its recommendation on this issue to the Board of Trustees, which is ultimately responsible for retiring the city service member and determining the issue of service-related causation; and

3. Although the Board of Trustees is "bound by the medical board's determination of disability," the Board is not bound by the medical board's determination that the disability suffered by the firefighter was the result of a service-related accident and the burden of establishing that the disability is causally related to a line-of-duty accident rests with the applicant for ADR; and ultimately

4. In the event the vote by the Board of Trustees results in a tie with respect granting the applicant ADR, the Board of Trustees is required to retire the applicant for ADR with Ordinary Disability Retirement benefits.

Further, opined the Appellate Division, a court may not set aside the denial of ADR resulting from such a tie vote unless "it can be determined as a matter of law on the record that the disability was the natural and proximate result of a service-related accident."

Click HEREto access the decision of the Appellate Division posted on the Internet.

Civics and Science: Contemporary Issues for Civil Democracy

Dr. Robert A. Michaels, NYPPL's Science Consultant, has published a new book focusing on contemporary issues of critical importance to American democracy.  

The book explores, in a strictly non-partisan manner, the nexus between civics and science, identifying contemporary issues of critical importance for American democracy. 

It promotes objective, clear thinking toward evidence-based decision making in a range of important issue areas.  Dr. Michaels is a politically unaffiliated observer of politics.  His analysis is rigorous, and his writing engaging and personal.

Available in a Kindle Edition [$4.99] and in a paperback hard copy format [$19.99].  For additional information about this work and to order your copy from Amazon, click HERE.