Parkland Middle School student hit, killed on Loop 375 after leaving campus during walkout

Ok

What do you think is guiding the left?

 

Libs use kids to make a political point and it doesn't end well.

Shocking.

 

Gee, I don't know. Maybe they have a student handbook where it lays out the rules and says that students aren't allowed to leave campus without being signed out through the office, and that truancy or skipping has some harsh consequences, or something? It's not like most schools don't have one of those. Seems to me that there may have been students that didn't care to participate, and they remained in the classroom, where teachers would also have to be stationed. Since the school made efforts to have supervision at the main entrances, proving the school was negligent would be fairly hard to do. They aren't omniscient and they don't have superpowers, but they did try to cover the bases. The kids went where they weren't supposed to go. Maybe kids do things they don't want their parents or teachers to know about, just like you said has been going on since the 60s.

 

Neither. The driver of the vehicle that hit the student is liable. Very little has come out about the driver or how it happened.
The protest and this accident are 2 separate events linked together by the MSM for obvious reasons.

 

We do not know if the driver of the car that hit the kid is viable or not not because we do not know if how the accident happened. As a one time claim rep I would have determined fro police reports and witness statements driver's statements, the victims statements (which is not always easy to get due to age). I had a case where a kid was hit luckily hut but not killed by our insured but the kids sister gave a statement to the police that her brother ran out from between parked cars. "We" covered the medical up to the limits of "our" policy on a "without prejudice" basis but we were ready to deny liability if the parents tried to come after us. in this case they put out feelers through they attorney and our company attorney reminded him of the sister's statement and alluded to witness statements which we had. He backoff with our "good will" gesture regarding the the medical payments.

So depending on the laws of the state there is no absolute liability on the part of the driver even with the emotions being that it was a child hit.

EDIT Add This could get complicated depending upon Florida's liability laws and auto insurance laws which I am not familiar with plus I have been away from the Property- Casualty business side of the house when I went over to the Dark side - Health Insurance some years ago.

 

Apparently you don't understand they let the whole ****ing school out to do this entirely unnecessary for school purposes outdoor assembly, and didn't properly supervise the kids.

 

Bailments for property not the same thing as in loco parentis.
Kids are not chattels dear. You analogy fails.

No waiver. The entire school was allowed out at once in a disorganized mob not related to school purpose not in the orderly manner that makes a fire drill reasonable supervision (as an example), school authorities allowed and encouraged the walkout.
The walkout was to be school grounds only. The kid was negligently supervised as evidenced by his absconding WHILE ostensibly being actively supervised along with his class. They didn't even notice he was gone til they got the call from the cops.

 

If we cannot take the basic measures required to keep the location secure, we should not be compelling attendance.
2 dozen? On 2 entrances/exits, the rest locked down, 8 hrs out of the day? Lol.

I'd rather spend it on security than football stadiums with jumbotrons like at my old high school.

 

No slip.

 

O my. You can't read either.. O dear how are we to help you?

Go back to my response about how it QUASHES POSSIBLE CLAIMS BEING MADE BY THE PARENTS BECAUSE THEY'VE ADMITTED TO NOTICE AND CONSENT.
Ok chief?

 

Again the WAIVER WAIVES A CLAIM BY A PLAINTIFF AHEAD OF TIME.
It doesn't state whether or not that claim could've been won had it been allowed to proceed, it CUTS IT OFF AT THE JUMP.

A waiver would not allow child abuse such as you describe them asking for.

Legal concepts and arguments are not your strong suit.

 

It was sanctioned by the school, hence their liability particularly since it was on school grounds. Did you have a point?
The point about necessity goes to REASONABLENESS. A fire drill which involves the entire school pop leaving the building at once is reasonable because of the STRUCTURE enforced which allows for proper supervision. The supervision that occurred in this case is in marked contrast to such an example as a fire drill, and was apparently almost entirely lacking in substance. They didn't cover the sides of the crowd when the sides weren't very secure and it was reasonable to assume that some students would attempt to abscond from the gathering (that's why you're supposed to supervise them in the first place ffs).

They didn't even bother with covering the sides? And you think its going to be hard to prove? Lol

 

Of course the level of care that needs to extended to a child is much higher than to a car. I am not drawing absolute equivalency here. i am opinion out that the concept of care custody and control is not mean absolute liability.

As an attorney for the school I would you if you have proof that is was a disorganized mob and under what definitions is it disorganized? You say "not related to school purpose " but how does that impact whether or not the school was careless?
The school authorities did allow the walkout that is true just as they would a pep rally. So how is that related to the schools legal liability? even if the school did encourage the walkout how does that related to their liability? You say that the kid was negligently supervised but how different was he supervised from all the other students?

Did the kid act in any way that indicated he was not following instructions to stay on school grounds?
Did the school have significantly less staff supervising this rally than say a PEP rally on school grounds?

You say that the 'kid absconded' "WHILE ostensibly being actively supervised along with his class". The is contradictory to you accusation that the supervision was "negligent".

Can we expect that there absolutely needs to be absolute supervision and containment of the kids while they are in school or is reasonable care and control what we can expect?

If happened during a school related function wouldn't the school have the same duty for supervision? If so why is that a factor in your argument? if this happened during a fire drill would you hold the school just as liable as in they case?

The expectation of safety and level of supervision should be the same whether you agree or disagree with the purpose of the rally or not.

 

Schools get to decide whether they are going to sanction activities or not. It seems, by the reporting, the activity was optional. So, students leaving class were indicating their intent to participate. Because some kids decided to skip out of the activity, it doesn't mean the school is liable for the kids doing something dangerous after they left school grounds…. as I pointed out to you with the link about the motorcycle hitting a child.

Yeah, I think negligence is going to be hard to prove. I'm going to bookmark this thread and when and if it goes to court, we can revisit the situation.

 

Does the school require a permission slip for all on school grounds rallies? If not why would this one be treated any different?

 

Some are socialists while others are redistributionists.

 

Why would liability differ from a necessary assembly to one which you term as "unnecessary"?

I say that the the liability is the same because if you are responsible for the children safety you are responsible whether you agree with the purpose or not.

I am not taking sides in the question of whether this rally was "necessary" or not.

 

There's nothing wrong with opting for an outdoor assembly, "entirely unnecessary" or not. Are the kids supposed to stay in during lunch and recess, too?

I wonder what you might say about an assembly for a cause you support.

 

I'm not saying absolute liability (actually STRICT liability is what you mean to say. But I'm not saying that either). This is negligent supervision IE a negligence claim.


Disorganized mob: there was no structure imposed on the gathering by the admin or teachers. They simply watched at the two gates only. Contrast that to say a fire drill and the organization imposed which is sufficient to keep a count of each child and ensure their positioning going forward. One is reasonable. The other is not. Can you guess which one?

Not related to school purpose: Goes to reasonableness. If the gathering itself was less than reasonable, it makes the actions of the school less reasonable and is relevant to a claim of negligence.

Encouraging the behavior helps to make you still more liable. This wasn't some spontaneous demonstration outside of the admins control because the students rioted en mass. This was a planned assembly that wasn't properly supervised or even supervised much at all.

Him different than others? He wasn't, he was just one of the several who took advantage of the negligent supervision and absconded. They were negligently supervising THE ENTIRE GATHERING. This kid just happened to get damaged by their breach of duty, hence the claim.

As to the kid and what was known about him:
1) it was known he wasn't participating in the rally. 2) he climbed the wall with a group of other students. 3) this would've been obvious, as it takes several seconds for a parade of 10 yr olds to hop say a 6ft - 8 ft fence or wall. Well it WOULD'VE been obvious to someone who was ACTUALLY supervising their students. They weren't. Hence the rub.

Less staff: Yes. At any pep rally I've been to there is a whole lot of structure. The event follows a script. The admin and coaches generally have a speech of some type of rara bullshit. The teachers are seated with their classes or otherwise actively supervising them by eye. Its not a wild scrum supervised only by the students themselves.

Its not contradictory if you know what the word 'ostensibly' means and can detect sarcasm. YOUR claim is that he was being reasonably supervised when he absconded, my comment there is making light of your argument. I'm making fun of you there. O my did you not pick up on that? That's absolutely precious.

Again, the only one arguing absolute liability is your strawman. This is a simple negligence claim. Their supervision was not reasonable because it was essentially non-existent.

If during a fire drill: If they held to the actual rules of a fire drill? No. A fire drill involves an orderly procession by classroom with students being accounted for both upon egress from the classroom and upon arriving at the specified assembly point for that particular classroom. If the kid somehow absconded while the teacher's back was turned while doing the headcount, I would not hold them liable for that. That is NOT what happened here. HERE the teachers were not supervising the students while at the assembly. They had teachers on the GATES ONLY. They were not organized by class. There was no actual structure at all. They didn't have teachers circulating in case of fights for ****'s sake! Schoolwide assembly in a scrum in the yard and they didn't think about having teachers on hand to prevent scores being settled? No supervision and they're SURPRISED they lost a whole group of kids?

 

Get this: a waiver doesn't reduce the standard of care required. The school district lawyers made it absolutely clear a waiver was irrelevant.

I'm telling you what the lawyers said.

 

Of course they do. And they are liable for their choices when you're assessing "was that reasonable?". The rally was less than reasonable as it served no school purpose. The behavior of the admin surrounding it was to essentially let it supervise itself. I say again the admins actions reveal their position was essentially "LET THE 10YR OLDS SUPERVISE THEMSELVES". That's pretty unreasonable. Your example earlier wasn't about an intersection that is adjacent to the school IIRC and lacked the extra facts of negligent supervision that surround the rally that occurred in the real world. It was also expert witness testimony only IE an argument not in any way conclusive as to any issue most especially a legal issue.

 

Were I the school's counsel and I was informed that their intent was to essentially let the 10 yr olds supervise themselves? I'd have wanted a waiver and consent form. You understand we're going to let the kids run their own rally on the football field without admin direction of any kind and we're only going to post 2 unlucky bastards at the gate.

 

It goes to reasonableness which is one of the main concerns when you're testing whether they breached a duty or not.

Was the activity supported by the administration reasonable? The activity being a student led and supervised political rally unrelated to school purposes, outdoors with no other structure imposed on it at all.

 

There's nothing wrong with a field trip either, provided you aren't negligent in your supervision. You realize we're talking about negligent supervision right? That we're talking about the particular failings in supervision in this particular case that led to this tragedy? That since we're assessing what is reasonable all the variables like "was this assembly necessary" and "were the kids supervised at all during the assembly or allowed to run wild?" and "why were there only two teachers on the gate only and no teachers circulating amongst the students keeping order and supervising? Was that reasonable?" are all important factors to discuss. That doesn't mean no assemblies or field trips may ever be had, but that THIS ONE was not reasonably supervised.

I'd say that I don't pay for the kids to have assemblies I pay for them to ****ing ******ned well learn reading, writing, math, science, and history so they can perhaps eventually find their asses with both hands, a map, and a flashlight and not be a continuous tax burden on me, a taxpayer. So I'd prefer they not do extraneous assemblies for no ****ing reason and instead use all the money that day would cost on the books to TEACH THE LITTLE ****ERS.
However, if they simply MUST have an assembly, I DO prefer that they be properly supervised since their attendance is compelled by law. Hell I prefer that out of a regular day, not just assembly days.
And if they are not supervised properly (ie if there is negligence, recklessness, or intentional conduct that is actionable, such as here) I expect them to have the ever loving **** sued out of them.

Did that answer your passive aggressive little aside there dear? Any further brain busters?

 

Get this: I'm not saying it does, as I've told you 3 ****ing times now.

I'm saying it prevents a plaintiff from raising a claim ahead of time by getting them to admit they were made aware of possible dangers and CONSENTED. It prevents them coming back later and claiming they did not, only, as stated.

Honestly man, do you ever get tired of constructing these ridiculous strawmen?

And I'm telling you you're a) obviously not quoting them verbatim and b) likely didn't understand everything they were trying to get across to you.