 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doe v. Cedar Rapids Community School District9/5/2002
school premises, in short, must be safe and welcoming . . . . The public school setting is one in which governmental officials are directly in charge of children and their environs . . . . Further, the responsibility of school officials for each of their charges, the children, is heightened as compared to the responsibility of the police for the public in general. Virginia G, 15 Cal. App. 4th at 1854.
Based upon this special relationship between a school and its students, claims against a school district based on its own negligence may be pursued. Id. at 1855 (claims against a school district for negligent hiring and supervision are permitted). The negligence claim before us is no different from the judgments of private individuals which are reviewed every day through the mechanism of an action in tort. Personal injury from . . . the negligence of those into whose care [children] are entrusted is not a risk that school children should, as matter of public policy, be required to run in return for the benefit of a public education. Alake, 666 N.E.2d at 1025 (citation omitted).
Applying traditional tort principles, the courts are perfectly capable of adjudicating the reasonableness of hiring, retaining, and supervising a particular teacher. Because the discretionary function immunity does not apply, summary judgment should not have been granted.
IV. Conclusion
We conclude the discretionary function immunity does not apply to a school district for the acts of hiring, retaining, and supervising an individual employee. Summary judgment on this issue should not have been granted. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All justices concur except Carter, J., takes no part.
|