Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Educators, including teachers and school administrators, are often concerned about the extent of their legal liability for injuries sustained by children who are under their direct supervision as students. When educators are sued for injuries to children, it is under the broad rubric of the tort of negligence. Torts are civil wrongs that occur when persons suffer harms or losses as a direct consequence of the improper conduct of others.

One type of tort, intentional torts, such as assault, battery, and defamation, are expressly characterized as the intent to do harm to others. For example, while assault is the threat of an unwanted touch, battery is the actual unwanted intentional contact with another person, such as striking a child while in the act of imposing corporal punishment.

By far, the most common tort occurring in schools is negligence. Negligence occurs when accidents take place resulting in injuries to others because one failed to act reasonably. In determining liability for negligence, courts and others such as insurance companies must assess whether the persons alleged to have been responsible acted as reasonable and prudent persons would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.

In order to present valid causes of action for negligence, plaintiffs, the parties filing suit, must prove the four legal elements of this tort: duty of care (along with the related notion of foreseeability), breach of duty, actual injury or loss, and cause, meaning that the defendant was the proximate cause of the resulting injury. To escape full or partial liability, defendants must assert all or parts of the three defenses: immunity, comparative or contributory negligence, and assumption of risk. This entry describes these legal elements and defenses in the education context.

Causes of Action

In school settings, educators have a duty of care to act as “reasonable and prudent” persons under the circumstances toward others, particularly students, with whom they have either common-law or statutory relationships. In other words, teachers must adequately supervise their students in order to satisfy their legal responsibility of duty of care. However, the degree of this supervision depends on a multitude of factors, including the ages of the students as well as the nature of their activities. For instance, courts impose higher duties of care on educators in potentially dangerous classroom settings such as a chemistry laboratory when compared to traditional classroom environments. Moreover, courts have consistently ruled that educators owe higher duties of care to younger students or those who have diminished mental capacities and lesser duties of care to older students and those who are not disabled.

Under their responsibility of duty of care, educators have a legal duty to anticipate reasonably foreseeable injuries or risks to students and take reasonably proactive steps to protect students from harm. Educators can be liable only for those negligent acts that were reasonably foreseeable or those acts of which they were aware.

In terms of the second element of negligence, breach of duty, there are generally two legal conditions that are taken into account in assessing whether educators breached their duty of care. The first addresses how educators performed their duties. Teachers can breach their duty in one of two ways: either by nonfea-sance, or not acting when there is a duty to do so (such as not breaking up a fight), or by misfeasance, acting incorrectly under the circumstances (such as using too much force in breaking up a fight).

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading