 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hill v. Safford Unified School District12/30/1997
and disciplined a student on Friday, September 17, the circumstances and students involved in that incident were different. On that day, it was White, not Fast, who was involved in the altercation. White had made a threatening hand gesture as if to shoot Grotte and "was behaving erratically." Moreover, White had been in trouble before. The record reflects that on September 20 there was only a heated exchange of words between Hill and Fast, nothing more. After both boys were brought to the office, the assistant principal spoke with each of them individually. The only evidence in the record about those interviews and the school's knowledge of any potential danger to Hill is found in portions of the assistant principal's testimony at Fast's criminal trial:
"Q.As a result of the interviews you conducted with Scott [Fast] and Clint [Hill] the afternoon of Monday the 20th, did you feel it necessary to take any disciplinary action against either of the boys at that time?"
"A. No, I did not. I visited like I say with Clint first and all he wanted was for Scott to stay out of his face and leave him alone."
"And likewise, when Mr. Bonefas and I visited with Scott, he made a similar remark, that he just wanted Clint to mind his own business and he would mind his."
"* * *"
"Q. . . . was it your understanding after talking with Clint and Scott Fast that the threats that had been going on between them that caused them to come into the office were just that they wanted to fight each other?"
"A. Those feelings existed and I was trying to find out why."
"Q. And you felt those had been defused at the time they left your office?"
"A. Yes."
"* * *"
"Q. Do you recall whether Fast at that time told you of any threats that Troy White had told him about being made involving an organization called the Eight Ball Posse?"
"A. We had rumors about the Eight Ball Posse around the school but as far as it being a part of the conversation, this is on Friday?"
"Q. No, this is on Monday."
"A. Monday Mr. Bonefas and I inquired about that and Scott at that time was not part of the conversation . It didn't relate to what we were talking about."
"Q. So your understanding of what happened on the 20th is Eight Ball Posse was not part of the issue that existed between Clint Hill and Scott Fast at that time?"
"A. Yes, we asked Scott about it and his response to us was that was not a part of it."
From this, it is not possible to conclude that the school abused its discretion by not imposing discipline or that it should have anticipated that Fast would "act irrationally" and cause Hill injury or death. Nor is there any evidence that the school failed to follow any of its guidelines or policies. Thus, there is nothing to support the claim that the school violated the supervisory requirements of § 15-341(A)(13) and (17) and created an unreasonable risk of harm to Hill when it released both boys after questioning them and determining the problem did not require further action.
2. Foreseeability of Harm After School
Appellant also argues that the school breached its duty to discipline students for disorderly conduct on the way to and from school pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-341(A)(14) because it was foreseeable "that the students would `take the fight somewhere else' as suggested by Defendant Andrews." The general test for whether a defendant's conduct has breached the standard of care is whether a foreseeable risk of injury resulted from the defendant's conduct. Robertson. Foreseeability of harm defines and limits th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|