Jackson Central owed a duty to its students to keep them safe from the violence

Jackson central owed a duty to its students to keep

This preview shows page 27 - 30 out of 102 pages.

-Jackson Central owed a duty to its students to keep them safe from the violence in^tfie area - they knew about the violence, required students to come to school knowing that they would have to go through the bad area to get there, and should have made reasonable efforts to make sure all its students had a safe way to come to school (without assuming no one took A's route) ^ . ^ ^7;ICJ ^ -Havirdale owed a duty to at least tell Asha of its discovery that she should have been in the Chapperly school once it discovered the error - the district voluntarily assumed the duty to inform Asha of the error. School district-pupil may also give rise to a duty to warn as it could be a special relationship or if there is a statute enacted proscribing a duty. Other factors not relevant here. -Breach - reasonable care standard states that a person must act with the care that the average reasonable person of ordinary prudence would follow under similar circumstances. -A reasonable school would make sure all its students had safe walking paths and not assume anything, which JC did not do. -A reasonable school district would tell a student that it was in the wrong school upon discovering the mistake, which H did not do. Also, burden of telling her was low compared to (1- Page 3 of 4
Image of page 27
probability and severity of harm by allowing A to continue going there. -Cause-In-Fact - both mistakes were but-for causes ofA's injuries and substantial factors. SOL - foresight test: unforeseeable plaintiff or consequences or intervening causes? -JC & H: student not unforeseeable, student harmed by going to bad school in bad area not unforeseeable, gangs harassing not unforeseeable b/c knew about it Damages - medical expenses for anxiety treatment and leg injury, lost future wages b/c hard to get a job coming from bad school Defenses - no contributory or comparative fault b/c Asha did nothing wrong. No assumption of risk b/c Asha was unaware of the mistake. Question #4 Final Word Count = 999 Page 4 of 4
Image of page 28
1. Funderburks s~ F v. Owners ofRawls Creek Culverts for Neelieence fHOA's? Railroad?) -negligence requires duty, breach, cause-in-fact, scope of liability, and damages, defense available. -duty - general duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to those persons who are foreseeably exposed to physical risks arising from the actor's conduct. -a foreseeable risk arising from not properly maintaining the culverts is flood damage to homeowners in the area = duty to properly maintain culverts. -breach - reasonable person standard of care: that which the average reasonable person of ordinary pmdence would follow under similar circumstances -it is not clear whether the damage was caused by the recent storm or whether it was there before, but the burden of maintaining the culverts would likely be low compared to the probability and gravity of harm resulting from flooding when they are not properly maintained -cause-in-fact: the 15 foot difference from sea level of water level clearly indicates the restriction to flow at the culverts was a but-for cause and substantial
Image of page 29
Image of page 30

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 102 pages?

  • Fall '14
  • Marie Boyd
  • F15_Torts Smith

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture