In the case of Schmidt v. Massapequa High School, the plaintiff, Schmidt, alleged negligent of the voluntary assistant coach and Massapequa UFSD (Union Free School District). On January 22, 2008, Vincent D’Agostino, who was a voluntary assistant coach at Massapequa High School, was allowed to participate in a wrestling practice by Massapequa UFSD. During the practice, D’Agostino picked the plaintiff up and threw him to the ground. While they were matching, D’Agostino’s body fell onto the body of the plaintiff, causing the plaintiff’s injury, fracture. Thus, the plaintiff, Schmidt, argued that Massapequa UFSD did not supervise D’Agostino correctly, and stated that the application of the doctrine of primary assumption is unwarranted. The plaintiff submits his own affidavit, his mother’s affidavit, and an affidavit of Steven Shettner. Since this case was submitted by the plaintiff, it is considered as a civil case. Shettner is an experienced wrestling coach. He states that there is risk of causing an injury in extracurricular sports; however, awareness of the risk assumed is to be assessed against the background of the skill and experience of the particular plaintiff. …show more content…
There were no concealed, unreasonably increased risks present at the time of the incident. D’Agostino graduated Massapequa High School in 2000. When the plaintiff’s injury caused, D’Agostino was 27 years old and weighed 275 pounds. When he was in high school, he wrestled for all four years, and he won some championship. On the other hand, the plaintiff was 6’2”, weighted 275. He was under age. He had many experiences of wrestling because he wrestled from 7th grade through 12th grade. Thus, they were almost in the same situation, except for their
“In tort law, the doctrine which holds a defendant guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he or she was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff's injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence”(Burt, M.A., & Skarin, G.D. (2011). In consideration of this, the defendant argues that the second foundation of this principle should be solely based on common knowledge of the situation. Although, there is a experts testimony tartar is no basis in this case , in the experts testimony or anything else, for indicating that the plaintiffs injury resulted from the negligence of the defendant. The court correctly found the defendant not liable under the Res ipsa
A teacher’s most important duty is to protect the students they are in charge of. This duty includes both reasonably protecting students from harm and, when a student is harmed, reporting it to the proper authorities (Gooden, Eckes, Mead, McNeal, & Torres, 2013, pp. 103-109). There have been many court cases that reiterate this duty of school staff. One such case is Frugis v. Bracigliano (2003) where many staff at a school failed in their duty to protect students and allowed abuse to continue for years.
Mr McKinnon must have, under the assumption of risk, known that there was a possibility for the risk of injury resulting in paralysis. Over data collected over a period of six years, showed that a total of 12 players in the rugby league code [1997 – 2002] have suffered from spinal injuries (Carmody D, et.al 2005.) This assumes that Alex must have known the possible risks and under the Civil Liability Act 2002, section 5G, “injured persons presumed to be aware of obvious risks.” Thus resulting in the assumption that he knew what could happen in such a high contact sport. Once again, this can be seen in the case Cafest v. Tombleson [2003] NSWCA 210. In this case Julianne Tombleson went roller-skating and broke her right wrist, claiming that she was not properly informed of the risks involved with the activity. However, the court found that there was a myriad of pre-emptive warnings to skaters such as highly visible signs that stated protection gear available for hire and that the rink centre will not be held legally liable to any injuries that may be sustained. This confirms and rectifies the concept of volenti non fit injuria. If the risks are clearly set out and known, one could not claim negligence for compensation, relating to the fact that Alex indisputably would have realised the potential
In 1974, Brooker T. Hillery Jr., John Larry Spain, Bobby Bly, and Michael Shane Guile, four Californian prison inmates, and Eve Pell, Betty Segal, and Paul Jacobs, three journalists, filed a lawsuit against Raymond K. Procunier, the Director of the California Department of Corrections. The suit was filed in regards to the constitutionality of the California Department of Corrections Manual Regulation 415.071. The manual regulated that the press and media could not specify particular inmates to be interviewed. However, the regulation did allow random inmates to be interviewed by the media. This regulation was passed following a brutal prison incident that officers believed was the result of allowing specified prisoner and press interviews. The
The court case Cleveland Board of Education V. LaFleur challenged the maternity policy regarding teachers having to go on unpaid leave involuntarily for 4-5 months due to their pregnancy. Jo Carol LaFleur and Ana Elizabeth Nelson whom were both teachers working under the Cleveland Board of Education when these issues occurred that lead to their decision of filing a suit against the board. They mainly hoped to be able to still continue their teaching well after the 5 month mark that the policy required them to leave. Failure to comply with these rules would have lead to their dismissal of their position or re-employment is not guaranteed. The Supreme Court ruled that the Cleveland Board of Education policy violated and went against the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. This case was very significant in which it preserved the rights of teachers, especially women.
Jackson vs. Birmingham Board of Education (2005) is a more recent case that still fights against one of history?s most common topics; equal rights. This will always stand as one of the greatest problem factors the world will face until eternity. These issues date back for years and years. This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 2004 for a well-known topic of sexual discrimination. It helped to define the importance of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
Many Supreme Court cases in the United States have reassured its citizens’ rights. One of those cases was that of the 1965 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case. This case was about five students who were suspended from school for wearing black armbands. Should the students have been suspended? The Tinker v. Des Moines case was a very controversial Supreme Court case in which the right to freedom of speech and expression for students in public schools was violated.
The decision of the Supreme Court regarding the use of screening procedures for student athletes is incorrect. . After an intense beginning in court, the judge denied the Actons.... ... middle of paper ... ... Works Cited Andrews, Mackenson.
1868 marked a proud year for African Americans with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to Constitution. It proclaimed that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”1 This essentially color blinded government, and granted all citizens (a category which finally included African Americans) what is described in the document as indisputable equality.
On June 26, 1995, the Supreme Court decided on the case Vernonia School District v. Acton as to whether or not random drug testing of high school athletes violated the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment. During the 1980's and 1990's there was a large increase in drug use. The courts decision was a strong interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and the right decision upon drug testing high school athletes.
Name & citation of case: Urban v. Jefferson County School District R-1, 870 F. Supp. 1558 (D. CO 1994)
The case under review involves Bill Foster, who attends a large high school in the northeastern part of the United States. Due to a strong gang presence in the high school, the administrators created a strict policy which denies students the wearing of earrings, jewelry, athletic caps, and emblems. Foster was suspended for wearing an earring to school. He claims that wearing the earring was a form of his self expression and individuality; his intention was not as a gang emblem, but rather a means to attract girls. Foster is suing the school district for violation of his freedom of expression right, guaranteed under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The first amendment states every United States citizen has the right to press, petition, assembly freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Also, the amendment states the government is not allowed to make any law that breaks the rights of a citizen. In the case, Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), the argument was if the students’ first amendment was violated, but the public schools are not an appropriate place to express freedom of speech.
We, all, have the opportunity to voice our opinion on subjects that matter to us. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech and expression. However, this was not provided to all students in 1968. During this time, there were three students in Des Moines, Iowa, who wore black armbands to school. These armbands were a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. After the Des Moines School District heard about this plan, they instituted a policy banning the wearing of armbands, leading to the suspension of students. A lawsuit has been filed against the Des Moines School District, stating how this principal goes against the students’ First Amendment rights. Thus, in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, Justice Abe Fortes determined the policy to ban armbands is against the students’ First Amendment rights. Yet, Justice Hugo Black dissented with this decision, determining the principal is permissible under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, was argued on March 29, 2000, in Texas (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The verdict was decided on June 19, 2000 by the Supreme Court. The case questioned the constitutionality of the school’s policy that permitted student-led, student initiated prayer at football games. The Supreme Court justices had to take the Establishment Clause of the first amendment into account when making their decision (Cornell University Law School). The case originated in the Santa Fe Independent School District, located in Texas. The District was against Doe, a Mormon and a Catholic family involved within the District. The purpose of the case was to determine if the school policy was in violation of the first amendment’s Establishment Clause which creates a divide between religion and government. The first amendment freedom of religion was the right at stake in regards to the Establishment Clause that defines a line between church