I. The Legal Framework
Cases against schools may vary based on whether the incident involves student on student conduct, the direct act of a school employee such as an assault or sexual misconduct, school bus accidents, or a slip and fall type incident. The cases apply the same foundational negligence framework. A plaintiff must prove five elements: (1) a duty of care owed to the plaintiff; (2) conduct below the applicable standard of care amounting to a breach; (3) an injury or loss; (4) cause in fact; and (5) proximate or legal cause. Roberts v. Robertson County Bd. of Educ., 692 S.W.2d 863 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985) (p. 34).
On proximate cause, Tennessee courts apply a three-pronged test:
- the school’s conduct must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the harm;
- there is no rule or policy that should relieve the wrongdoer from liability because of the manner in which the negligence resulted in the harm; and
- the harm could have reasonably been foreseen or anticipated by a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence. McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767, 775 (Tenn. 1991).
Schools are not insurers of student safety. Teachers and school districts are not expected to insure the safety of students while they are at school; the applicable standard is reasonable and ordinary care under the circumstances. This standard varies based on the age and maturity of students and the dangers to which they are exposed. Rathnow v. Knox County, 209 S.W.3d 629, 634 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).
If your child was hurt on school grounds due to negligence or improper upkeep, contact a personal injury attorney in Knoxville today.
Call (865) 691-2777.
II. Foreseeability: Probability, Not Mere Possibility
Foreseeability is the linchpin of proximate cause analysis. The plaintiff must show that the injury was a reasonably foreseeable probability, not just a remote possibility, and that some action within the defendant’s power more probably than not would have prevented the injury.
In Rathnow v. Knox County (2006), a student fainted after viewing a first-aid video and was injured. The court reversed a $30,000 judgment, holding that the teacher was not negligent because the student’s fainting was not a reasonably foreseeable probability because the video was not sufficiently graphic, the student said she was “okay” when she left, she walked steadily, and no student had ever fainted from the video in the teacher’s 20-year career.
III. Student-on-Student Violence: Prior Misconduct Required
Tennessee follows a conservative foreseeability approach: student misconduct is not to be anticipated absent proof of prior misconduct. Mason ex rel. Mason v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, 189 S.W.3d 217, 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).
In Mason (2005), a student was slashed with a razor from a school cosmetology kit on the school bus. The court vacated an $80,000 judgment, holding the attack was not foreseeable because the attacker had no history of violence, the students did not know each other, and the teacher had provided safety instructions and tested students on them before allowing them to transport the kits. The intentional criminal assault, and not the teacher’s actions, was the proximate cause.
Similarly, in Snider v. Snider (1993), a school released a student to her uncle, who raped her. The court affirmed dismissal because the harm was not foreseeable because school officials were unaware of the uncle’s prior conduct toward children, and the child showed no reluctance to leave with him. Violation of the school board’s release policy did not constitute negligence per se.
In Brackman v. Adrian (1971), a student was struck by a bat while playing catcher in a softball game. The court reversed judgment for the plaintiff, holding that the school was not an insurer of student safety and that the evidence failed to establish that teachers supervising the playground were negligent, as there was no proof of the student’s exact position behind the batter or that requiring a catcher’s mask was required under the circumstances.
IV. When Schools Are Held Liable
Inadequate Instruction and Supervision: In Roberts v. Robertson County Board of Education (1985), a student suffered a serious head injury when a drill press bit deflected during shop class. The court found the shop teacher negligent on four grounds: he permitted inexperienced freshmen to remain unsupervised in the presence of dangerous power equipment; he never instructed students in proper techniques for assisting others with shop machinery; he gave a student a drill bit for a use he had never been trained on; and the teacher conceded the accident would not have occurred had he been present to supervise. Judgment of $25,000 was entered against the school board.
Bullying with Notice and Policy Violations: In Moore v. Houston County Board of Education (2011), a student was repeatedly bullied and ultimately beaten by a peer who paid another student to carry out the attack. The court affirmed negligence and reversed immunity, finding the attack was foreseeable because administrators were notified of the bullying throughout the school year, the aggressor had made explicit threats, and administrators failed to follow the school’s mandatory bullying and harassment investigation policy. The school board’s failure to implement existing policy was an operational and not discretionary function, removing its governmental immunity. The court further held that where the Board had a duty to prevent foreseeable intentional acts of third persons, it was jointly and severally liable with the intentional tortfeasors for the full damages award.
Special Needs Students: In Phillips ex rel. Gentry v. Robertson County Board of Education (2012), a student with Asperger’s syndrome was blinded in one eye when his teacher left the classroom and another student struck him with a book. The court affirmed $300,000 in damages, finding two grounds of negligence: the teacher violated school policy by leaving the classroom unsupervised without arranging coverage, and the school failed to disseminate critical information about Jacob’s Asperger’s diagnosis, behavioral tendencies, and bullying history to his teacher. Because the school knew Jacob was a “bully magnet” and had difficulty reading social cues, a physical confrontation was foreseeable even without a prior incident specifically involving the same aggressor.
V. School Appropriate Response: Liability Avoided
In Zukowski v. Hamilton County Department of Education (2021), a student alleged prolonged bullying and sexual harassment at a magnet school. The court affirmed judgment for the school, finding that when bullying was reported, administrators responded appropriately because they addressed known bullies directly, informing them their conduct would not be tolerated, and offering the student a means to report further incidents. The court emphasized that schools must respond to known dangerous conditions, but cannot be absolute insurers of student safety, and upheld the trial court’s credibility findings that the student’s testimony about being ignored was not credible.
Key Takeaways
If your child is injured at school and you have reasons to believe that the school is at fault, contact our law firm. Our Knoxville personal injury lawyers routinely take school bus accident cases and other school-related injuries.