O.C.G.A. § 20-2-731 (2019)
When and how corporal punishment may be administered
An area, county, or independent board of education may, upon the adoption of written policies, authorize any principal or teacher employed by the board to administer, in the exercise of his sound discretion, corporal punishment on any pupil or pupils placed under his supervision in order to maintain proper control and discipline. Any such authorization shall be subject to the following requirements: (1) The corporal punishment shall not be excessive or unduly severe; (2) Corporal punishment shall never be used as a first line of punishment for misbehavior unless the pupil was informed beforehand that specific misbehavior could occasion its use; provided, however, that corporal punishment may be employed as a first line of punishment for those acts of misconduct which are so antisocial or disruptive in nature as to shock the conscience; (3) Corporal punishment must be administered in the presence of a principal or assistant principal, or the designee of the principal or assistant principal, employed by the board of education authorizing such punishment, and the other principal or assistant principal, or the designee of the principal or assistant principal, must be informed beforehand and in the presence of the pupil of the reason for the punishment; (4) The principal or teacher who administered corporal punishment must provide the child’s parent, upon request, a written explanation of the reasons for the punishment and the name of the principal or assistant principal, or designee of the principal or assistant principal, who was present; provided, however, that such an explanation shall not be used as evidence in any subsequent civil action brought as a result of the corporal punishment; and (5) Corporal punishment shall not be administered to a child whose parents or legal guardian has upon the day of enrollment of the
ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUC.
pupil filed with the principal of the school a statement from a medical doctor licensed in Georgia stating that it is detrimental to the child’s mental or emotional stability.
History
Ga. L. 1964, p. 673, § 2; Ga. L. 1977, p. 1290, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Consideration with Family Violence Act. - Trial court erred in finding that a guardian proved by a preponderance of the evidence, as required under O.C.G.A. § 19-13-3(a), that a mother committed an act of family violence pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 19-13-1 as there was insufficient evidence that the mother committed an act of violence, specifically simple battery in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23, as opposed to administering reasonable discipline in the form of corporal punishment as O.C.G.A. § 16-5-23 specifically exempted corporal punishment from the definition of battery, and the appellate court determined after considering O.C.G.A. §§ 16-3-20 and 20-2-731 that the alleged action of the mother in slapping the child did not rise to the level of unreasonable discipline. Buchheit v. Stinson, 260 Ga. App. 450, 579 S.E.2d 853, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 397 (2003). Punishment not excessive as matter of law. - It is to be anticipated that corporal punishment will produce pain and the potential for bruising, but as long
as the student experiences no more than the short-term discomfort to be expected from the administration of corporal punishment, the evidence demands the conclusion as a matter of law that the punishment administered was neither excessive nor unduly severe. Maddox v. Boutwell, 176 Ga. App. 492, 336 S.E.2d 599, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2350 (1985). Contact not amounting to corporal punishment. - Teacher’s grasping student’s face to get the student’s attention did not amount to corporal punishment. Daniels v. Gordon, 232 Ga. App. 811, 503 S.E.2d 72, 1998 Ga. App. LEXIS 841 (1998). Summary judgment reversed when materially varying versions of what occurred. - Summary judgment for principal was reversed in action brought by parent for injuries to child whose arm was broken while the child was being administered corporal punishment since there were materially varying versions as to what occurred. Crews v. McQueen, 192 Ga. App. 560, 385 S.E.2d 712, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 1080 (1989).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 68 Am. Jur. 2d, Schools, §§ 314 et seq., 321. Am. Jur. Trials. Public School Liability: Constitutional Tort Claims for Excessive Punishment and Failure to Supervise Students, 48 Am. Jur. Trials 587. C.J.S. 78A C.J.S., Schools and School Districts, §§ 1089, 1090.
ALR. Personal liability of school authorities for dismissal or suspension of pupil, 42 A.L.R. 763. Teacher’s civil liability for administering corporal punishment to pupil, 43 A.L.R.2d 469. Criminal liability for excessive or improper punishment inflicted on child by parent, teacher, or one in loco parentis, 89 A.L.R.2d 396.