Town Immunity Falters After Student's Prolonged Bullying

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 Straiton v. New Milford Board of Education, a high school student was bullied and then assaulted by a fellow student. He brought suit against the town and its board of education.

This case arises out of an April 2008 incident in which the student, who was new to New Milford High School, was bullied and subsequently assaulted by a fellow student. The student Kyle Straiton, attended New Milford High School and was bullied and harassed by the fellow student, Kevin DaSilva during his freshman year. The bullying and harassment continued and Straiton made a formal complaint a few months into the school year. On the day the student made his formal complaint, the bullying student DaSilva confronted him in the hallway, knocked his books to the ground, grabbed him by the shoulder and tried to punch the Straiton. The physical altercation was subsequently stopped by a teacher. Following that incident, DaSilva's bullying and harassment of Straiton continued.

The school board moves for summary judgment for the student’s claims of negligent supervision. In law, summary judgment is a preemptive decision by the court in favor of one party over the other. It is predicated on the claim that the case lacks any actual dispute of material fact, and can therefore be determined by the court without need for trial. In the case at hand, the board of education argues they are entitled to judgment on negligent supervision counts due to governmental immunity. In law, negligence is the failure to use reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another. In order to succeed in this claim, the student must prove that (1) the school board and its employees owed a duty of care to the student, (2) the school board breached that duty and, (3) the breach of duty was a direct cause of the student’s (4) real and compensable injury. 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.

In resolving their summary judgment motion, the court found that the town and board's actions were discretionary for purposes of governmental immunity under Connecticut law. However, there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the identifiable person-imminent harm exception to immunity applied in the circumstances. The board’s immunity is not applicable when the circumstances make it apparent to a public officer that his or her failure to act would be likely to subject an identifiable person, such as a bullied student, to imminent harm. By its own terms, this test 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 victim to that harm. The claim that there was no legally cognizable duty to supervise high school students lacked merit.

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: Straiton v. New Milford Bd. of Educ., 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 773 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 13, 2012)