School Fails to Disprove Young Student's Immunity Exception

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 Beckwith v. O’Hara, a student and her mother, filed a negligence action against several parties, including a teacher, and board of education. The teacher and board of education filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the student’s claims were barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity granted by Connecticut and Federal law. Governmental immunity protects state agents, agencies and employees from being sued. However, Connecticut law specifically provides circumstances under which municipalities and its employees can be held liable in tort as well as circumstances under which they will retain the shield of governmental immunity

The student alleged that she was injured when the fellow students forced a school bathroom door shut with a rope and jammed her hand in the door. The student alleged that defendants were liable because her claims qualified under the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to governmental immunity. or the identifiable person/imminent harm exception to the general rule of 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 only identifiable class of foreseeable victims that Connecticut courts have recognized for the foreseeable victim/imminent harm exception to governmental immunity is that of schoolchildren attending public schools during school hours.

The school conceded that the student was a member of a foreseeable class of victims to whom they owed a special duty of care. The question was whether there was imminent harm to the student and whether it was apparent to school that their conduct was likely to subject the student to that harm. There was conflicting testimony regarding the location of the rope used in the incident, the number of students present, the duration of the incident, the previous occurrence of similar incidents, and whether the teacher actually monitored the area during the time period in question as was his admitted responsibility. The school failed to show that there were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether there was imminent harm to the student based upon the duration, geographic scope, significance and foreseeability of the risk of harm to the teacher and/or other school officials.

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: Beckwith v. O'Hara, 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2324, 2009 WL 3086398 (Conn. Super. Ct. Aug. 26, 2009)