LEGAL EXPERT’S ANNUAL COMPILATION OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS FROM 2012
WRITTEN BY PEGGY A. BURNS, ESQ.
IN THE REARVIEW MIRROR
1.
DRIVERS’ FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE
RULES CAN BE THE TIPPING POINT IN A CASE OF STUDENT INJURY
Last year, we reported
on a “conscience-shock- ing” case of student injury during a contractor-con- ducted bus evacuation drill (I.R. v. Forrest Marshall Peirce, et al., Jan. 5, 2011). Te school district had failed to share information with the contractor about I.R.’s rare and serious bone disease.Te substi- tute driver — and former owner of the bus company — instructed the student to participate. When he jumped out of the bus, the boy was badly injured. In an opinion on Sept. 10 of last year, in which the court considered additional facts besides the district’s failure to share, the school district was dismissed from
the case, and the contractor and the driver were held li- able. Now, only the amount of damages remains to be decided by a jury. Te “additional facts”
included the veteran driver’s decision to use his own discretion and ignore the mandates of the Pennsyl- vania School Bus Driver’s Manual. Te manual requires a driver to walk to the rear door to supervise an evacuation drill. Peirce stayed at the front of the bus because, “in his expe- rience,” this would prevent the “class clowns” from hiding under seats to avoid participating. In addition, despite the manual’s provisions excluding from participation any student who could be injured or disabled during the drill, Peirce failed to announce that such students did not have to exit the bus. I.R. reported that he
46 School Transportation News January 2013
did not identify himself as someone who could be hurt. He had been assisted in prior year’s drills, and had heard that Peirce was a “mean driver,” and the boy said he didn’t want to be yelled at. Since the district had put “numerous safe- guards” in place (despite not having told the contractor of the boy’s disability), the court dismissed the district from the case. Te lesson: You may not
get the information you need. Don’t let deviations from policy by transporta- tion staff members be the most direct cause of injury to a student.
2.
AVOIDABLE DRIVING ERRORS
DRAG DISTRICTS AND COMPANIES INTO LAWSUITS
While it’s hard to know
if each of the following sample of cases decided
last year that relate to driving errors are examples of the distracted driving epidemic we’re all con- cerned about, that may be a contributing cause. In a Nov. 8 New York
case, summary judgment was granted in favor of a motorist against a school bus driver and school dis- trict. Te school bus driver admitted that she did not see the stop sign and that she applied the brakes only after two or three feet of the bus had passed the sign and entered the intersec- tion, where she collided with the motorist. In July, a Tennessee
court assigned the greatest proportion of liability to a district and driver in a case in which a school bus hit a 12-year-old bicyclist. Te bus driver’s negligence included excessive speed, driving on the wrong side of the road and failure
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56