A state appellate court ruled last week that a school district had the duty to ensure that an adult family member or responsible sibling was on hand to meet young students after an early dismissal from school. While the Jerkins v. Anderson and the Pleasantville Board of Education ruling is not precedent-setting or binding, it may be viewed by other courts for guidance when faced with similar cases. 

A 9-year old student suffered severe injuries when he was struck by a car late in the afternoon on a day the school had closed for early dismissal. The child’s family members, who typically walked the boy home from school, claimed they did not know about the early dismissal.

Adequate Notice However, the school argued that its calendar was published in a monthly newsletter sent to each home and was duplicated in the student handbook distributed during the first week of school. It also gave the calendar to each family at school registration.

Family members filed the lawsuit against the owner and the driver of the car, as well as the school board and the principal. They accused the school officials of “negligently, carelessly, and recklessly” failing to exercise “their duty of reasonable supervision and care” for the boy’s safety.

The school did not have a written policy that dealt with parents failing to pick up their children at the end of the school day, or required that each child be released to an assigned adult. School officials argued that they expected their students would walk home, unless parents had signed them up for the district’s after-school program, or had instructed them not to. Students not permitted to walk home were allowed to call their parents from the school’s main office if they were not picked up.

Ruling Appealed A Superior Court trial judge determined that neither the school board nor the principal had a duty of reasonable care for the child’s safety.  The parents appealed that ruling, insisting that such a duty existed, and that these defendants breached it by allowing the boy to leave the school unsupervised.

The Appellate Division reversed that ruling and agreed with the boy’s family that the school board and the principal were responsible for the boy.

The three-judge panel emphasized that teachers and administrators act as guardians taking the place of parents during school hours. They did not believe it would be burdensome for the board and the principal to determine whether the younger students had been met by an adult or responsible older sibling, nor to place a phone call to find out if someone would be meeting the student.

Breach of Duty The panel did not rule on whether the board had breached its duty, and sent the issue back to a lower court for a jury to decide.  A jury will consider whether the board’s practices and procedures, including its notification about early dismissal to parents, created sensible and adequate steps to care for the boy’s safety.

This decision is likely to prompt boards of education to review their practices and policies to determine whether they have sufficient procedures in place that guarantee student safety after dismissal, especially in elementary schools.