good morning honorable justices was a pleasure to be here today my name is gerald madison and i represent the interest of joshua spiller who's now deceased and other teenage drivers like him as most people a lot of us we have had teenage children in our families and we've recognized the dangers that are associated with teenage driving and recently many legislatures across the country have recognized this danger all fall by making laws that prevent sixteen year olds from driving with other sixteen year olds and at the time that this incident happened that wasn't the case i remember interviewing children who were driving my daughter before i would let her drive with other students and the school system in carson carson city also recognized this danger as the legislature back in the one nine hundred seventy s and they made regulations and they talked about how it was necessary to prevent this epidemic from continuing and that's what that's what didn't happen in this case is that a teacher who was in a position of power her name was karen chandler she did not hon what she was supposed to do she did not protect those children she sat in her deposition she said that she was aware of the rules that said that students were supposed to be driven by professional drivers and that students were not so i supposed to be driven by other students if you recognize to the quick here this is not a removed case it is not what you did in this case was removed from state court to federal court now so you are claiming that there is a violation of federal law just a constitutional right was violated just explain why that is so in light of the fact that everything that you've talked about his quintessentially or quintessentially matters of state law well and she had her students she told her students about a opportunity to go to and perform as a class in genoa for the stars continu celebration she at the same time offering this opportunity she tried to stand back into the wings and say ok i'm not part of this because i don't have time for it and she knew she didn't have time for it because in the month of may the school didn't allow transportation available for the for any class projects to new that and yet she makes this offer to the children and then she continues to meddle with  alleges that she had qualified immunity and the kennedy case was very similar on the facts if you look at it in the form of power and abuse of power she she alleges doubt she wasn't part of it but yes she was she had she was in a position of power teachers are like that is every teacher who says to their students we're going to go on and alex going to the museum or we're going on a field trip to to such and such a place and they end difference is that she was aware of the fact that this was dangerous she was aware of the rules she denied she said she didn't know it was dangerous but that's unbelievable well what that sounds like to me is that  between perhaps ordinary negligence and even more negligence but i don't understand how that alters negligence to the constitutional violation well let me refer briefly i guess the question is was it was it outrageous was was just something that was more than mere negligence and was a deliberate in well i don't even think it is that much but she actually put her children and there are other classmates injured in this car accident also they were all from the same class she she went beyond just negligence to put them in a position of change or has she followed the rules are had she done what she was supposed to have done they would not have been put in the position of danger because they would have been driven by drivers who were qualified they were being driven by a sixteen year old girl and that's pretty outrageous i mean we get used to the idea of children being injured in car accidents but it's an epidemic and it's been going on for a long time  i think in the kennedy case we talk about a known danger with deliberate indifference for personal safety that's what happened here she knew about it and she was indifferent about it she just kept standing back she she to a play are they going to be liable for this and i think that in view of the school policy that when you tell your students about something and there is the opportunity to bring in the school policy they should warn their students i moved done away with that to a large extent because of sakshi it's in the states now prevent students from driving other students they've had to go farther because things like this continue to happen you good morning may it please the court my name is steve paulson bush i represent the carson city school district my privilege to do so i should say and a wonderful teacher karen chandler and  would just offer to this court a basic fact pattern in this matter and that is a devoted teacher who provided an opportunity for her kids to go to perform a drama correct your honor there's no no question about that but your honor how we get from a teacher in a parking lot providing costumes to her students as to the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment is dumbfounding in this matter as this court is aware the due process clause is phrased as a limitation on the state's power to act that's what it is it's step there so that the state can't tromp on people different school teacher support a claim and if so where is that line your honor i'd i don't think there is i mean that this circuit has determine that under the due process clause that as a fit state is the limitation on the state's power but under this circuit's decision the mental state or the standard of care that's required to state a due process claim there your honor but that's that's because the state created danger exception has the two components the state affirmatively places an individual in a position of danger that's number one that has to be shown in that case you've got a teacher or someone that you just said putting someone in a closet beating them that's the affirmative park we have none of that in this case there wasn't anything affirmative done by this teacher she was kind enough to let the kids use the costumes but there is no evidence viewed alights favorable to the plaintiffs that she did anything with respect to assigning kids driving habits the individual had there isn't any evidence of that actually played no part in that nor did the school district play any part in that either is any indication as to whether this was a one car accident oh your honor there is that was a head on the teenager that was driving the car lost control of her vehicle and entered the east that westbound lane when she was traveling eastbound and that's what caused the accident and caused the tragic loss of life in this situation so  different this very stringent standard the circuit has announced and that is that you acted in deliberate indifference to unknown or obvious danger no evidence of that in this case whatsoever how can they prove the case when karen chandler didn't even know who the children were traveling with she just simply made the cottons available provided an opportunity for them a friend of her invited them to do that and that's all that she did and this standard of false been put out by this circuit even as most recent on your honor is this idea of qualified immunity karen chandler's entitled that in this case certainly in this in this matter there was there was no constitutional right it was violated that the first prong of the fast you  thoughts no your honor there was not this was simply was not a school function the only time that that applies to any state was regarding requiring transportation a student pass to be a school function this was no different than if if one of your children are going to go to a go see some guest speaker the president comes to the city of reno which he happened to be in the last election and you send the kids there so you go there is be a good thing for your history class to go see this and they go  they're told about it and they go and if you're going to attach why a bill and that's a state wide believe it constitutional i believe simply doesn't attach well i you know i i have some problem with the notion that teachers can think that's true and then say oh but it's not any kind of school sponsored event so therefore we don't have to provide we there's no there's no protection under state law for them i don't well your honor as far well your honor in the state of nevada it does go that far because under chapter forty one forty one or thirty two which has been breached in this case if a state actor exercise discretion then they are immune from liability for exercising that discretion and certainly a teacher has the discretion to tell children or students about certain events if we're going to create a state towards this is really before this court is this a state issue state state tort question but your honor for teachers to be hamstrung and chilled to the to the point that they can't even tell their children of events without believing in myself the repercussions of some type of a liability for that is just taking the tort law i think of certainly the state of nevada too far but we're not there in this case we're here with the due process clause we're here about the state affirmatively creating a dangerous condition and a state actor acting with deliberate indifference to a known safety activities that are in any way related to the klan the subject of the class being that the teacher teaches that they have to provide transportation requires the children to be transported when the teacher mentions to them an activity under that case there would be a violation of a lot of right now and that a violation only of state law or threat of violence something your honor that would be a violation of state law not federal law because there's no contravention of the fourteenth amendment there's no again the state is not the moving party that's putting these children in harm's way and they're not in an under that they're not the party that's created the dangerous condition that they're not affirmatively placing them in that position so i don't think they've been i don't think the fourteenth the men would be offended under those facts that you stated either your honor there may be a state tort claim but i don't think the fourteenth amendment again the fourteenth amendment is intended to provide for to protection against oppression or the government being the moving force behind something in the scenario you've just given me that simply is not the chair is the state so far as the children we are honored the teacher is the state  under the circumstances but they're not the moving force in terms of who caused the harm in that case whatever happened the accidents or whatever circumstances would pertain to that would be the the cause and effect of the proximate  by placing her a known danger with deliberate indifference to her personal physical safety yeah it is exactly what happened in this case it's right can anything i have a that's a recent case march seventh two thousand and six and and we believe that that is exactly what happened in this case karen chandler was the ringleader she gathered class together and she set them off and she pointed in the direction he says basically says you can get there however you want and she knew that these kids were dangerous every time she went out into that parking lot when the kids were leaving after school it's a mess and she saw how badly those kids drove and she had kids