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

Schools are in bad shape cause decades of underfunding long before Devos. Pathetic attempt to deflect responsibility on the school itself.

 

You're making assumptions you can't prove. You don't know that the administration allowed kids to supervise themselves. Obviously, adults manned the exits where the students were expected to go, so that says they were making reasonable efforts to supervise the students. Because these kids were devious and used a side door, it doesn't mean the administration was negligent. They might be negligent, but we don't know that from what's been in the news.

We don't know if these kids had done something like this before. We don't know whether or not someone caused a distraction that allowed them to slip away unnoticed. We don't know if they were all from the same classroom or not. We don't know if they used an excuse to get out of class other than to participate in the activity, like asking to go to the restroom.

What we do know is that these kids had a plan, deliberately didn't follow directions, deliberately avoided supervised areas, and deliberately left the school grounds against school rules.

I hate the kid was killed. I can't even imagine his parents' grief.

 

Obviously Devos did not cause the current state of affairs with the school systems but she is not doing anything to help it either, maybe even hurt it.

 

If the rally is on school grounds just as say a sports PEP rally would be why would liability differ ? Why would the structure of the rally be a factor? I am not defending the nature of the rally just saying it does not matter if we agree with the purpose of the rally as long as the guidelines are the same as for other rallies.

 

Does not prevent someone from making a claim it can be used to aid the defense against the claim.

 

"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."

Why? Where I went to school they had a few teachers roaming the halls listening for commotions in the rooms when we had sports team pep rally's in either the Gym or the Football field. Think the school staff simply screwed up and need to be held responsible.

 

This is a question of is the school obligated to take a higher than reasonable care effort;
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable+care
reasonable care
n. the degree of caution and concern for the safety of himself/herself and others an ordinarily prudent and rational personwould use in the circumstances. This is a subjective test of determining if a person is negligent, meaning he/she did notexercise reasonable care. (See: negligence, duty of care)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved."

In insurance we also referred to this as the "prudent man " concept.

This is subjective but in general schools are required to take reasonable care to protect students.

 

Hyperbole. Do you know what that is professor? I'm making a point: They don't seem to have supervised the kids AT ALL. They had a couple of dudes on the gate. That's it. They had no teachers circulating through the gathering supervising. That's a fact.

They don't need to have done it before its fairly reasonable to assume some portion of the ENTIRE SCHOOL POPULATION of kids will attempt to leave school during such an unsupervised assembly. Hence why you circulate. See fire drills for what supervision of the entire school populace outdoors at once looks like.

What we do know is that these kids weren't supervised because the rally was not supervised. They had some dudes at the gate and that's it. "deliberately avoided supervised areas" yes by being at the rally they were able to be unsupervised because the rally wasn't being properly supervised. Now you're getting it.

 

There's a lot we don't know about this situation. We don't know whether every student was supposed to go to the football field, or if it was optional and those that didn't want to participate stayed in their classroom. We don't know if the administration took reasonable steps to supervise the students, but this little group found away around the administration's best efforts.

As I have said before, maybe the administration is liable, but from what's been in the news, there's no evidence they were negligent. A lot is being assumed, based on personal experience, and may or may not be applicable. Middle school kids do stupid things. They are very susceptible to peer pressure, and their hormones are out of control. Despite the best efforts of the administration, this same incident could have happened anywhere, when kids decide to take advantage of a situation. We can't pretend that schools are secure. We know shooters can get in unnoticed. We know kids can get out unnoticed. Asking the administration to be perfect and to have an eye on every single kid in a school at all times is not realistic.

Until I see more information, I'm going to believe the administration acted professionally, and the kids made some really bad choices that ended tragically.

 

Yes and this is clearly not reasonable according to Learned Hand's formula: Potential of harm coming to unsupervised child allowed to abscond (getting struck in the roadway adjacent to the school) + gravity of said potential harm (death, serious injury) v the burden of new less dangerous conduct (supervising the little ****ers like you're ****ing supposed to or not having the rally) + its utility (+ supervision = less likelihood of death or injury to the children, while maintaining more firm control of the activity. Some loss in that you will need personnel to supervise. If the answer is "but we don't have enough personnel to do all that" then the answer is don't have the ****ing rally or suffer the consequences if you do and someone gets hurt.) .

Pretty simple calculus there.

 

If only you had something to prove what your assumptions say... like a citation of a news report, where it has been determined that no one was supervising the students at all, no teachers were circulating through the gathering. Do you have something like that to prove your allegations?

 

Was there less than reasonable supervision at this rally ? How do we tell ? Was there less supervision at similar events at this school?

If there were 20 times the "dudes" whatever they are at this rally is it reasonable to assume that the kid would no have escaped ?
Would it have taken 100 times the "dudes" surrounding the rally to prevent this kid from escaping? How may feet were there in the circumference of the rally mass? 3000 ? So maybe the only way to have prevented the kid from escaping is to station a "dude" every tree feet.

 

If your claim involves "i never would've allowed this" or "i did not consent to this" or "the very idea is unreasonable" (for this one think going to an amusement park or other inherently dangerous place) you're estopped from making it by your waiver.... unless you'd like to be countersued for bringing a frivolous law suit. You do realize that's WHY waivers exist at all?

 

You've not been reading the thread I see. Time to go back through I'd expect.

 

I believe we've already talked about what pep rallies and fire drills look like. Do you want me to simply quote that so you can read it this time or were you just being contrarian?

If there were teachers circulating through the rally and keeping some semblance of order over their assigned charges? If there were teachers posted around the site so those who inevitably hop the wall are caught, punished, and protected? I'm pretty sure someone who could cover the sight lines of the fence and radio the school resource officer to go chase would be sufficient for the small volume of students expected to attempt escape. 4 sides generally so 4 people should do it. They can have the coaches do it.
Again: NO ONE IS SAYING STRICT LIABILITY. What I've been saying is this is a clear case of a negligent supervision, given the facts. You don't have to absolutely prevent any harm or escape ever contemplated. You have to act reasonably. Having a couple dudes on the gate for a gathering so large, unruly, and unstructured, outdoors, on 4 ****ING 20 ( a day when more than the average number of escapees could reasonably be expected) is ****ing negligence.

 

Why would a structured gathering where the kids are kept under control be any different than an administration approved unsupervised scrum? Gee Partizan1 I've got no idea.

If the guidelines for all their rallies are thus, I'm surprised this is the first time this is being brought up. They're simply lucky some kid hasn't died before this.
What matters is whether or not the behavior of the admin on THIS ONE RALLY was reasonable. PERIOD.

 

Not being contrarian I have not seen any facts that showed what the level of supervision was only opinions floated here. So I match opinion with opinion. Show me facts that the school did not act reasonably! They may have they may not have but where are the facts?

 

Go back through the thread. Myself and other posters have laid it out and linked it, when taken cumulatively.

What this tells me is that you are being contrarian because you haven't been reading the sources provided throughout the thread.

 

not what I said.

 

https://academic.oup.com/lpr/article/5/1/1/990799
"The formula assumes, however, that courts are in a position to compare, ex post, the risks of accidents and the costs of avoiding them. If judges or juries cannot accurately compare these risks and costs, they may be unable to assess liability in a way that induces efficient behaviour. According to Judge Richard Posner, the Learned Hand formula has ‘greater analytic than operational significance’ because ‘the parties do not give the jury the information required to quantify the variables that the Hand formula picks out as relevant’.5Consequently, juries are ‘forced to make rough judgments about reasonableness, intuiting rather than measuring the factors in the Learned Hand formula’.6"

Again the assessment of liability by the court is whether we like it or not heavy on subjectivity.

 

i really did not see sources but I will trust you and look since I am a REASONABLE MAN!!! LOL

 

Nah, I'm not going back through all 16 pages. I've traded several posts with you and read several others. I've yet to see you cite anything. Are you saying you cited reputable news sources that say there was a negligent amount of supervision?

Edit to add… so I went all the way back to where I first posted to you and I saw one citation about school supervision, and answered that post. Do you have other citations to prove what appears to be assumptions?

 

Wouldn't that all come out in court? If they followed proper procedure then they would be exonerated, if not they would have to pay.

 

Yes, it will come out in court, if a case is even taken to court. Like I said, lots of assumptions are being throw around without proof. I'm waiting on more information before I say the school was negligent or liable. I don't see evidence they were. I do see evidence that the kids left campus without permission. It's probably a violation of the student handbook. It's not proof that the students were not sufficiently supervised or that the school was negligent.

That being said, I would imagine the parents will sue. They lost their child. I just don't know if they will win, not from what we know now anyway.

 

Ok I trusted you and wen through the posts and the one link you posted and some others posted was as i thought links to general discussion on responsibility. There was nothing in any posts that linked to a news or government or district report that described the number of supervisory staff at this rally. Just as i thought nothing but opinion. i said that I was a reasonable man and that will look, did and found nothing like you said should be there!! I am not being reasonable the next time.