Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 365 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Spell the answer to 6 + 7 =:
Please spell spammer backwards:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by ajasfolks2
 - September 08, 2011, 11:50:23 AM
Follow on post
notnutty (respectfully snipped)

Quote
or....

if we as parents, and our children's physicians, can reasonably predict that a reaction will occur in the environment offered by the school, then schools should be able to work proactively to prevent such reactions.

And that when they do NOT.... they have already FAILED in their duty of care.

Posted by ajasfolks2
 - September 08, 2011, 11:48:42 AM
http://allergy.hyperboards.com/action/view_topic/topic_id/8076


CMdeux
Dec 9th, 2008

Quote
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11177346

Fair warning here-- this case is particularly distressing.  It involves a special needs student who was raped.  The school district attempted to say that they were not responsible because they couldn't have possibly seen it coming...   :banghead:

The judge in this case seems like a particularly level-headed guy.  The world could use more people like him.

QuoteCourt says schools must protect special-needs kids
The Associated Press
Posted: 12/09/2008 11:32:17 AM PST


VENTURA, Calif.—Appellate justices have ruled a disabled 14-year-old student raped on campus in 2005 can sue the Los Angeles Unified School District for failing to protect special-needs kids.
Second District Court of Appeal Justice Kenneth Yegan wrote for the Ventura court Monday that a public school student with mental or physical disabilities "needs help and protection."

The teenager was allegedly sexually assaulted by another special-needs student after lunch in April 2005.

The school district claimed it cannot protect such students from attacks that are not foreseeable.

But Yegan wrote that the Virgil Middle School case shows the vulnerability of a special-needs child, saying "it is foreseeable that they may be victimized by other students."

Plaintiff attorney Edward Steinbrecher says schools must provide extra supervision for special-needs children. School district lawyer Calvin House says he cannot discuss the decision.

———

Information from: Daily Commerce




Bold is mine.

Basically, my interpretation of this ruling's usefulness is that if we as parents, and our children's physicians, can reasonably predict that bullying/taunting can occur then schools should be able to work proactively to prevent such incidents.

And that when they do NOT.... they have already FAILED in their duty of care.