Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 380 / Act 451 of 1976
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1312 (2026)

“Corporal punishment” defined; infliction of corporal punishment by employee, volunteer, or contractor; exercise of necessary reasonable physical force; liability; violation; deference given to reasonable good-faith judgments; development, implementation, and enforcement of code of student conduct; model list of alternatives to use of corporal punishment; authority permitting corporal punishment void.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE REVISED SCHOOL CODE


Act 451 of 1976


380.1312 “Corporal punishment” defined; infliction of corporal punishment by employee, volunteer, or contractor; exercise of necessary reasonable physical force; liability; violation; deference given to reasonable good-faith judgments; development, implementation, and enforcement of code of student conduct; model list of alternatives to use of corporal punishment; authority permitting corporal punishment void.

Sec. 1312.

    (1) As used in this section, "corporal punishment" means the deliberate infliction of physical pain by hitting, paddling, spanking, slapping, or any other physical force used as a means of discipline.

    (2) Corporal punishment does not include physical pain caused by reasonable physical activities associated with athletic training.

    (3) A person employed by or engaged as a volunteer or contractor by a local or intermediate school board or public school academy shall not inflict or cause to be inflicted corporal punishment upon any pupil under any circumstances.

    (4) A person employed by or engaged as a volunteer or contractor by a local or intermediate school board or public school academy may use reasonable physical force upon a pupil as necessary to maintain order and control in a school or school-related setting for the purpose of providing an environment conducive to safety and learning. In maintaining that order and control, the person may use physical force upon a pupil as may be necessary for 1 or more of the following:

    (a) To restrain or remove a pupil whose behavior is interfering with the orderly exercise and performance of school district or public school academy functions within a school or at a school-related activity, if that pupil has refused to comply with a request to refrain from further disruptive acts.

    (b) For self-defense or the defense of another.

    (c) To prevent a pupil from inflicting harm on himself or herself.

    (d) To quell a disturbance that threatens physical injury to any person.

    (e) To obtain possession of a weapon or other dangerous object upon or within the control of a pupil.

    (f) To protect property.

    (5) A person employed by or engaged as a volunteer or contractor by a local or intermediate school board or public school academy who exercises necessary reasonable physical force upon a pupil, or upon another person of school age in a school-related setting, as described in subsection (4) is not liable in a civil action for damages arising from the use of that physical force and is presumed not to have violated subsection (3) by the use of that physical force. This subsection does not alter or limit a person's immunity from liability provided under 1964 PA 170, MCL 691.1401 to 691.1415.

    (6) A person who willfully or through gross negligence violates subsection (3) or who willfully or through gross negligence violates subsection (4) may be appropriately disciplined by his or her school board or public school academy. This subsection does not limit a school board's or public school academy's authority to discipline an employee for a violation of its own policies.

    (7) In determining whether an employee, volunteer, or contractor has acted in accordance with subsection (4), deference shall be given to reasonable good-faith judgments made by that person.

    (8) A local or intermediate school district or a public school academy shall develop and implement a code of student conduct and shall enforce its provisions with regard to pupil misconduct in a classroom, elsewhere on school premises, on a school bus or other school-related vehicle, or at a school sponsored activity or event whether or not it is held on school premises.

    (9) The department shall develop a model list of alternatives to the use of corporal punishment. This model list shall be developed in consultation with organizations that represent the interests of teachers, school employees, school boards, school administrators, pupils, parents, and child advocates, plus any other organization that the state board of education may wish to consult. The department shall send this model list to each school district, public school academy, and intermediate school district in the state and to each nonpublic school in the state that requests it. A local or intermediate school board or public school academy shall approve and cause to be distributed to each employee, volunteer, and contractor a list of alternatives to the use of corporal punishment. Upon request, the department of education shall provide assistance to schools in the development of programs and materials to implement this section.

    (10) Any resolution, bylaw, rule, policy, ordinance, or other authority permitting corporal punishment is void.

History: 1976, Act 451, Imd. Eff. Jan. 13, 1977 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 521, Eff. Mar. 30, 1989 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 6, Imd. Eff. Mar. 10, 1992 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 289, Eff. July 1, 1996 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 461, Imd. Eff. Jan. 10, 2001

PopularName Notes:

Act 451
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Willoughby v. Lehrbass, 388 N.W.2d 688 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Willoughby v. Lehrbass, 388 N.W.2d 688 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 9× “In an action for battery and use of unreasonable physical force on a student, must the trial judge instruct on battery solely pursuant to the standard jury instructions, and must the trial judge inform the jury that the school code provision dealing with corporal punishment, MCL…”
Gaston v. Becker, 314 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “MCL 380.1312(2); MSA 15.41312(2). Becker's actions, from the viewpoint of the plaintiff's son, reasonably could have been viewed as occurring within the scope of the teacher's employment and apparent authority.”
Widdoes v. Detroit Pub. Schs., 619 N.W.2d 12 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 5× “In Widdoes v Detroit Public Schools, 218 Mich App 282, 287 ; 553 NW2d 688 (1996), a panel of this Court affirmed a circuit court’s determination that petitioner did not violate the corporal punishment prohibition of the Revised School Code, MCL 380.1312; MSA 15.41312. This Court…”
Widdoes v. Detroit Pub. Schs., 553 N.W.2d 688 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “-unlawfully inflict corporal punishment on [the student] in violation of MCL 380.1312. [Petitioner’s] response was totally out of proportion to [the student’s] action, which consisted merely of walking across the gym *285 to get his shirt instead of leaving the gym immediately…”
Phelan v. Bell, 8 F.3d 369 (6th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “North-ville’s Human Rights and Behavior Modification Review Committee refused to authorize SIBIS because it violated school guidelines against the use of contingent electric shock, as well as Michigan’s Corporal Punishment Act, Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 380.1312 (West Supp.”
Davis v. Hillsdale Cmty. Sch. Dist., 573 N.W.2d 77 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “41261, MCL 380.1312(8); MSA 15.41312(8). Indeed, such power is basic to the operation of schools.”
Wells v. Farmington Pub. Schs. (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 8× “The Court holds that Ely is shielded from Wells’s assault claim due to Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1312 and that Wells’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails as a matter of law.”
20241112_C366791_37_366791.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 6× “The State Tenure Commission denied the teacher’s appeal, holding that the teacher unlawfully inflicted corporal punishment on the student in violation of MCL 380.1312. Id. This Court reversed the Commission’s ruling, holding that the teacher’s use of force was reasonable and…”
Wadley v. Hazel Park Sch. Dist. (E.D. Mich. 2019). · cites it 2× “459 (2008); Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1312 . The Court must therefore grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants on the state law claims as well.”
Atkinson v. DeBraber, 446 N.W.2d 637 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 5× “At the close of proofs, the court gave instructions to the jury, part of which related to the "gross abuse” standard set forth in MCL 380.1312; MSA 15.41312, regarding the use of physical force by a teacher against a student.”
Cinthia S Murillo v. Kevin Michael Haff (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “Then, plaintiff attacked a girl that was being restrained by another teacher. Defendant again restrained plaintiff.”
Davis v. Hillsdale Cmty. Sch. Dist., 573 N.W.2d 77 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 380.1312(8); M.S.A. § 15.41312(8). Indeed, such power is basic to the operation of schools.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1312(1) — 1 case
20241112_C366791_37_366791.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The State Tenure Commission denied the teacher’s appeal, holding that the teacher unlawfully inflicted corporal punishment on the student in violation of MCL 380.1312. Id. This Court reversed the Commission’s ruling, holding that the teacher’s use of force was reasonable and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1312(2) — 1 case
Gaston v. Becker, 314 N.W.2d 728 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “MCL 380.1312(2); MSA 15.41312(2). Becker's actions, from the viewpoint of the plaintiff's son, reasonably could have been viewed as occurring within the scope of the teacher's employment and apparent authority.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1312(3) — 1 case
20241112_C366791_37_366791.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The State Tenure Commission denied the teacher’s appeal, holding that the teacher unlawfully inflicted corporal punishment on the student in violation of MCL 380.1312. Id. This Court reversed the Commission’s ruling, holding that the teacher’s use of force was reasonable and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1312(4) — 1 case
Widdoes v. Detroit Pub. Schs., 619 N.W.2d 12 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “In Widdoes v Detroit Public Schools, 218 Mich App 282, 287 ; 553 NW2d 688 (1996), a panel of this Court affirmed a circuit court’s determination that petitioner did not violate the corporal punishment prohibition of the Revised School Code, MCL 380.1312; MSA 15.41312. This Court…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1312(4)(a) — 1 case
Widdoes v. Detroit Pub. Schs., 619 N.W.2d 12 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “In Widdoes v Detroit Public Schools, 218 Mich App 282, 287 ; 553 NW2d 688 (1996), a panel of this Court affirmed a circuit court’s determination that petitioner did not violate the corporal punishment prohibition of the Revised School Code, MCL 380.1312; MSA 15.41312. This Court…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1312(5) — 1 case
20241112_C366791_37_366791.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The State Tenure Commission denied the teacher’s appeal, holding that the teacher unlawfully inflicted corporal punishment on the student in violation of MCL 380.1312. Id. This Court reversed the Commission’s ruling, holding that the teacher’s use of force was reasonable and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1312(7) — 1 case
20241112_C366791_37_366791.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “The State Tenure Commission denied the teacher’s appeal, holding that the teacher unlawfully inflicted corporal punishment on the student in violation of MCL 380.1312. Id. This Court reversed the Commission’s ruling, holding that the teacher’s use of force was reasonable and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 380.1312(8) — 2 cases
Davis v. Hillsdale Cmty. Sch. Dist., 573 N.W.2d 77 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “41261, MCL 380.1312(8); MSA 15.41312(8). Indeed, such power is basic to the operation of schools.”
Davis v. Hillsdale Cmty. Sch. Dist., 573 N.W.2d 77 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “§ 380.1312(8); M.S.A. § 15.41312(8). Indeed, such power is basic to the operation of schools.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.