(a) Each school district and its employees owe its students a duty of ordinary care to
prevent the students from being exposed to unreasonable risk, from which it is foreseeable
that injury is likely to occur.
(b) School districts and their employees do not owe their students a duty of immediate
supervision at all times and under all circumstances. (Added 1983, No. 122 (Adj. Sess.).)
Edson v. Barre Supervisory Union 61, 2007 VT 62 (Vt. 2007). · cites it 5ד16 V.S.A. § 834. To date, we have not had opportunity to construe the limits of this statutory duty, and thus we look to the common law, to the extent that it is consistent with the statutory language, to determine the scope of the legal duty at issue here.”
Edson v. Barre Supervisory Union 61, 2007 VT 62 (Vt. 2007). · cites it 5ד16 V.S.A. § 834. To date, we have not had opportunity to construe the limits of this statutory duty, and thus we look to the common law, to the extent that it is consistent with the statutory language, to determine the scope of the legal duty at issue here.”
Reilly v. Sw. Vermont Supervisory Union (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2דWhile conceding that school municipalities have a duty to protect students from intentional torts such as assault and battery under 16 V.S.A. § 834(a), they argue that there is no duty owed to parents or students to reasonably implement an effective behavior plan.”
Knelman v. Middlebury Coll., 898 F. Supp. 2d 697 (2012). “2d 200, 203-04 (quoting 16 V.S.A. § 834). In turn, it has noted that, “[u]nder our common law, ‘ordinary care’ requires individuals to act as a reasonably prudent person would under the circumstances.”
ortiz v. derby Sch. Dist. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “16 V.S.A. § 834. The Vermont Supreme Court has held that this statue does create liability for a school district where the district does not have sufficient knowledge or notice to bring the incident in question within the realm of the foreseeable.”
Hornbostel v. S. Burlington Sch. Dist. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2004). “” 16 V.S.A. § 834. The district then argues that the presence of snowbanks did not breach this duty, because they pose no unreasonable risk and any risk from them is open and obvious.”
Edson v. Barre Supervisory Union 61, 2007 VT 62 (Vt. 2007). “16 V.S.A. § 834. To date, we have not had opportunity to construe the limits of this statutory duty, and thus we look to the common law, to the extent that it is consistent with the statutory language, to determine the scope of the legal duty at issue here.”
Edson v. Barre Supervisory Union 61, 2007 VT 62 (Vt. 2007). “16 V.S.A. § 834. To date, we have not had opportunity to construe the limits of this statutory duty, and thus we look to the common law, to the extent that it is consistent with the statutory language, to determine the scope of the legal duty at issue here.”
Reilly v. Sw. Vermont Supervisory Union (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “While conceding that school municipalities have a duty to protect students from intentional torts such as assault and battery under 16 V.S.A. § 834(a), they argue that there is no duty owed to parents or students to reasonably implement an effective behavior plan.”
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.