Injured Student Holds School Accountable Despite Immunity

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 Thompson v. Town of Groton, a student’s parents sued the town and board of education for injuries their child sustained as a result of another student’s misconduct. The parents moved for summary judgment, which is a preemptive judgment by the court in favor of one party over another. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court's function is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist. In seeking summary judgment, the parents have the burden of showing the nonexistence of any issue of fact. In this case, the parents moving for summary judgment have the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all the material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle them to a judgment as a matter of law.

The injuries were sustained during class. The class was under the supervision of a substitute teacher, who was playing a movie for the class. Another student threw a paper airplane at the student. After the student refused to give the plane back, the other student violently grabbed her arm and twisted her right wrist, causing the student’s injuries. The board of education argued that, as agents and employees of the municipality, they were entitled to governmental immunity, which protects governments from being sued.

There are some exceptions to governmental immunity. The parents argued that their student was entitled to suit because of the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity. For the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity to apply, three things are required: (1) an imminent harm; (2) an identifiable victim; and (3) a public official to whom it is apparent that his or her conduct is likely to subject that victim to that harm. The identifiable person-imminent harm exception to government immunity applies not only to identifiable individuals but also to narrowly defined identified classes of foreseeable victims. School children who are statutorily compelled to attend school, during school hours on school days, can be an identifiable class of victims. The trial court found, inter alia, that the town did not owe a duty to protect the high school student from injury because, pursuant to Connecticut law, that duty was expressly delegated to the board of education. Therefore, the parents could not collaterally hold the town responsible for a responsibility that rested with the board of education’s duty.

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: Thompson v. Town of Groton Bd. of Educ., 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 486, 2012 WL 753795 (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 16, 2012)