1

Torts
Discuss the potential liability of Teacher and of City Middle School, as well
as any defenses each may raise.
Issue
The issue involves a teacher and a pupil from the City Middle School who is injured while on the
science field trip to the beach. The pupils are left on their own while at the beach as the teacher
admonishes them to be careful rather than keeping close eye on them while at the beach. One of
the pupils identified as Jennifer is injured on her finger while trying to pick the sea urchin as her
spines dislodges on her finger. As she got injured in the absence of the teacher, she failed to
report the issue to the teacher and her parents. the issue on her finger becomes worse to the point
that it could be notices and she told a teacher. Upon telling the teacher, no further action or
relevant action was taken but the teacher neglected and asked her to report the matter to the
parents because he already knew hoe dangerous was the infection. The issue of Jennifer gets
worse as the teacher did not take a considerable step even though was aware how danger was the
infection. The infection on the pupil gets worse and even parents advise her to heal by sunlight
but the situation gets worse to the point she is serious sick and Jennifer needs to be amputated.
Therefore, the issue is based on negligence of the teacher while on duty as he breached his duty
that led to the actual cause and the proximate cause of the damages of the plaintiff.
Rule
In this issue, it brings about the rule of negligence which needs individuals to conduct
themselves in a way that conforms with a certain standard of behavior. Lack of conforming into
a certain standard behavior leads to liability for the harm that is caused in another person. Based
on the issue, negligence is found on the teacher to have neglected his duty of looking up for the
children and decided to lie under the use (Winfield, 1934).The breach was both the actual cause
and proximate cause on Jennifer’s damage. The case aroused from the issue of negligence
because of the improper supervision which indicates that the teacher and the schools cannot offer
foolproof supervision.
Analysis
Mostly, the common type of personal injury results from negligence. Negligence describes the
situation in which a person acts in a manner that is careless and results someone else getting hurt
or having a long-time damage. Even though negligence is common, it is a difficult area to the
law to defines because it involves a legal analysis of the elements that involves negligence that
are related to the facts on a certain law (Proehl, 1958). Therefore, the law requires the individual
particularly those in charge to conduct themselves in a way that conforms a specific standard of
conduct. Without conforming to those standards, then the individual will hold liable for the
injury or harm caused on another person. In this legal requirement, it is connected with the
teacher and the City Middle School in which they failed to conduct themselves in a way that
conforms a specific standard. Due to the negligence of the teacher, who was found to have
neglected his duties in looking down on the pupils, it means he did not conform to the standard
 2

and therefore, resulted to the harm of the pupil (Jennifer) to the point her finger was to be
amputed.
In connection to negligence, the standard of conduct requires the teacher to act accordingly and
within the conforms which should have prevented the pupil from touching a sea urchin that
caused the injury of the plaintiff. The teacher had a legal duty to take care of the children and
direct them because he was the one in charge of the trip, instead only asked pupils to take of
themselves. The teacher had a legal duty to supervise the movements of the pupils at the beach.
Therefore, it can be argued that due to the negligence of the teacher, then the pupil was exposed
to the danger which cause an infection. The teacher omission to act on hi responsivity and it
brings about the common law which, obtains in the majority of states, the teacher in the case of
negligent tort is the only defendant against the plaintiff because the governing body of the school
for various reasons can be defended as an attribute of sovereignty and as a result of the
classification of public education as a governmental function and therefore, the court will not
allow the diversion of the public proceeds that can satisfy the tort claims (Winfield, 1934; Seitz,
1971). It implies that, the school will not be held responsible for the tort of negligence because
the case will be a diversion of public proceeds to satisfy tort claims and therefore, it is not
possible to transfer the liability of negligence to the school.
On the other hand, the defendant can counter argue on the case of negligence in which it can be
argued that the teacher in the first place cautioned the pupils to be careful upon arriving at the
beach. Besides, 7th grade pupils are old enough to follow given instructions and therefore, the
teacher wanted them to behave accordingly to avoid unnecessary injuries. And earlier discovery
of the spines dislodges on the finger of the plaintiff, actions could have been taken earlier and
therefore this cannot be treated as negligence of the teacher but that of the parents. It can be
further argued that, some circumstance accidents do happen and large groups need to have
personal responsibility based on the given instructions. The other considerations, accidents do
occur and cannot be graded as negligence but the case of negligence was to be directed on the
parents because upon realizing the situation of Jennifer was getting worse and they could not get
any further action to take Jennifer to hospital.
Conclusion
Based on the case, I find the teacher to be innocent on the on the injury of damage on the hand of
Jennifer’s finger amputation. Taking the children on the science trip was a good idea and the
teacher showed concern on the security of the pupils by informing them to be careful. If were not
the information of the teacher, then many pupils would have injured. Jennifer’s finger dislodge
was by accident because it was the only incident occurs for the large number of pupils attended
traveled, besides, Jennifer knew made a mistake that is the reason why she failed to report the
incident to the teacher early because she could not follow the instructions given by the teacher.
The tort of negligence should lie on the parents of Jennifer because upon knowing the
deteriorating condition of Jennifer’s finger, they could not take any action to taker her to hospital
and be treated as required therefore, they neglected. It means that chares should be imposed on
the parents but not the teacher.
 3

References
Proehl, P. O. (1958). Tort liability of teachers. Vand. L. Rev., 12, 723.

Seitz, R. C. (1971). Tort liability of teachers and administrators for negligent conduct toward pupils. Clev.
St. L. Rev., 20, 551.

Winfield, P. H. (1934). Duty in tortious negligence. Columbia Law Review, 34(1), 41-66.