New CT Law Helps Identify School's Obligation to Bullied Students
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 21, 2017
Other Education Accident & Injury Personal Injury Government Public Interest Law
Summary: Blog post explaining a new Connecticut law that is helping to make it more clear to schools what their obligations are to students who are being bullied.
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 Hernandez v. City of West Haven Board of Education, a student alleged that the board and officials failed to comply with the board's policy against bullying and its directive as to procedures to be followed in cases of suspected bullying. The school moved to dismiss on their claims of governmental immunity. In law,
The student's claims against the board of education and school officials were not barred by governmental immunity or sovereign immunity because a duty of care was imposed upon the board and officials, and thus, whether or not each was negligent in performance of that duty and whether that negligence was a proximate cause of the student's injuries were questions of fact for the jury. Such a policy was mandated by Connecticut’s Safe School Climate laws, which expanded the scope of the foreseeable class of victims' exception to governmental immunity sufficiently to impose a duty of care on the board and officials and to make any negligence or failure to act material questions of fact for the jury. Generally, a school board, as an extension of a municipality, is entitled to governmental immunity. This usually protects the state and its agents from liability when acting in the furtherance of their duties. However, the town may not be protected if they violate or fail to perform a specific duty or directive that results in injury. The identifiable victim, imminent harm exception to qualified governmental immunity, requires three things: (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 new state laws specifically expanded so as to include students as an identifiable victim, therefore the exception applied to governmental immunity.
The court denied the board’s motion for summary judgment. “The Court has found that the claims against [board of education] are not barred by either governmental immunity or sovereign immunity” said the court. “Having imposed a duty of care on the [the board of education], whether or not each was negligent in performance of that duty and whether that negligence was a proximate cause of the minor [student’s] injuries are questions of fact for the jury.”
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: Hernandez v. City of W. Haven Bd. of Educ., 2013 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1299, 2013 WL 3311101 (Conn. Super. Ct. June 6, 2013)