THOUGHT LEADER
Liability of School Districts in the Transportation of Children with Disabilities
Written by Linda F. Bluth, Ed.D. A
s an individual who follows school transpor- tation media regularly, I was shocked to read the detailed reporting on the choking death of Fajr Atiya Williams, a 6-year-old child with
severe disabilities, during her school bus ride from home to school in July. Her death was reported by CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC, NJ. Com, the New York Post, and via YouTube, among others. These headlines and content were explic- it and shocking. Another industry wake-up call. Immediately, upon reading the multiple commentaries
about Williams’ death, I was reminded about a landmark legal ruling from 2002 that defined the responsibility of school districts and their Individualized Education Pro- gram teams to ensure oversight of transportation services for students with disabilities as well as proper training of transportation employees, whether employed by the school district or a contracted transportation provider. Then, I read a recent newspaper article that recalled the 1999 case of Cynthia Susavage, the little girl with brittle bone disease who died on her school bus in a sim- ilar way to Williams, due to the monitor failing to notice that she was suffocating in her harness. The article ques- tioned how could these two dreadful deaths both occur? The horrific loss of these two lives provide a genuine reason to re-visit the current requirements for driver and attendant training, to meet child specific needs, and to be commensurate with school transportation industry best practices. In 2002, a court ruling issued by Judge James Giles,
involving Cynthia Susavage v. Bucks County Schools, Intermediate Unit No. 22, et al., the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, faulted in part, the Quakerstown Community School District, the Bucks County Intermediate Unit 22 and Levy Bus Company for the death of Cynthia Susavage occurring on Sept. 25, 1999. Susavage was a young child with significant disabilities. It was stated that the failure to transport her safely contributed to her death. In this case, the driver made several mistakes in putting on Susavage’s child safety restraint system (CSRS). She was placed in her CSRS backward with the zipper against her throat. The failure to adequately train the driver to transport Susav- age safely was a contributing factor to her death.
48 School Transportation News • OCTOBER 2023 The Morning Call, a daily newspaper in Allentown,
Pennsylvania, reported that a settlement had been reached in this case for $3.6 million dollars. The report- ing of this case, including the specific verdict details made a considerable impact on school bus transporters nationally. The existence of an award of $3.6 million, in 2002 was a wake-up call to the school transportation industry about the importance of appropriate school transportation driver personnel training, accountability and the potential award of monetary damages if/when something horrific occurs. The importance of understanding school transpor-
tation liability for children with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Sec- tion 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S. Code §1983-Civil action for deprivation of rights is essential for transportation per- sonnel, especially for those in leadership positions. It should be understood by school transporters that
there are significant consequences for underestimat- ing the importance of safe transportation practices for children with disabilities. I have spoken with transporta- tion administrators that were unexpectedly naïve about transportation liability as it pertains to their specific job description, especially when they have a responsibility for supervising others for the safe transportation of chil- dren with disabilities. When a school district provides transportation or
contracts for transportation with a third party to provide transportation, for a child with a disability who has an IEP, or for a child with a disability, without an IEP, the school district undertakes a duty of care for that child during transportation. A duty of care by a school district, includ- ing school transportation, is commonly understood as the duty to protect children from risks of personal injury or harm. Transportation personnel should be fully knowl- edgeable about liability with respect to them being held accountable for safe transportation. A comprehensive understanding of allegations re-
garding negligence and gross negligence is required knowledge. For education purposes negligence is com- monly defined as the failure to exercise one’s duty of care that results in injury or loss to another person. This
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 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
