Child Sexually Abused On School Bus, School Held Liable

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

In the case of Milhomme v. Levola, the parents of a minor child filed a motion to strike special defenses pled by school for the parents’ complaint.

The parents alleged the negligent supervision on a bus permitted the other children on the bus to physically and sexually abuse the minor which resulted in the minor suffering personal and emotional injuries. Generally, a school board, as an extension of a municipality, is entitled to governmental immunity. This usually protects the state and its agents, including a public school, from liability when acting in the furtherance of their duties. However, a public school may not be protected if they violate or fail to perform a specific duty or directive that results in a student’s injury.

The school’s first and second special defenses claimed that Connecticut’s statute of limitations, the plaintiffs' action was time barred. In law, a statute of limitations installs a limited window within which a person must take action after suffering an injury or detriment. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion because Connecticut law permitted filing an action for sexual abuse within 17 years from the date of the minor's reaching the age of majority and the minor was still under 17. The court granted the motion on the third defense because its limitation of liability was excepted for an injury to a child being transported to school. Nevertheless, the sovereign immunity defense was granted because the defendants were acting under state mandate pursuant to Connecticut law and regulations, and as state agents they were immune.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendants' special defenses of statute of limitations, governmental immunity, laches, and lack of a duty of care. But the court denied the motion on the defendants' claim of sovereign immunity. “There are two bases for finding that the school’s special defense is improper” said the court. “First, the school stood in the shoes of the parents of the children on school bus number 108 and thus, had a duty to protect them from the intentional acts of others, including other school children. Second, the duty of the school also extended to an obligation to maintain discipline and order. Having failed in that regard, the school may not now claim that their failure to prevent the very conduct they had a duty to prevent relieves them of liability.”

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Milhomme v. Levola, 1995 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2090 (Conn. Super. Ct. July 14, 1995)