Opinion ID: 1480725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Evidence of Ford's Deviation from the Standard of Care

Text: The defendants argue that plaintiff failed to present evidence establishing that Ford breached his duty to supervise. The defendants assert that expert testimony was necessary because Ford's teaching environment encompassed two adjoining rooms, one of which contained potentially dangerous equipment and was a situation unique even for every day teachers, let alone the typical juror. The defendants argue that Ford's teaching situation further departed from the regular classroom setting because it was imperative that Ford assess the students' fitness to work with the dangerous equipment prior to allowing them to leave the classroom and enter the lab. Conversely, plaintiff asserts that expert testimony is unnecessary to establish either a standard of care or a deviation therefrom, because the jury may apply its common knowledge and experience to determine whether Ford breached his duty to supervise his students. After carefully reviewing the record, including Ford's uncontradicted testimony about his classroom practices, it is our view that plaintiff failed to demonstrate in any way that Ford breached his duty of supervision. Although the handbook specifies the requirement that teachers must supervise the students at all times, plaintiff did not establish a specific act or omission [of Ford] that indicated a deviation from the proper standard of care. Morales, 895 A.2d at 732. For example, plaintiff did not offer any evidence about whether a teacher's duty of supervision at all times requires the teacher's constant physical presence with each student, as plaintiff suggests. Indeed, even the case law from other jurisdictions that plaintiff cites to support the proposed standard of care for teachers in supervising their students does not contemplate that a teacher's physical absence from a student is necessarily a breach of the duty to supervise. See Collins, 471 So.2d at 564 (quoting Cirillo v. City of Milwaukee, 34 Wis.2d 705, 150 N.W.2d 460, 465 (1967)) (enumerating factors to consider when determining whether a teacher exercised reasonable care when supervising students, the fifth of which is the reason for and duration of the teacher's absence). Additionally, plaintiff failed to offer any evidence about the supervisory expectations of teachers over late students, particularly in consideration of the unique nature of Ford's duties and teaching environment in a shop-style class held in both a classroom and an adjoining lab, or of Ford's deviation from the standard of care expected of teachers in such situations. Morales, 895 A.2d at 732. Although Officer Medeiros testified that Ford told him after the incident that he was surprised that it had not happened sooner, there was no evidence to suggest that Ford knew or should have known that the three students were in the laboratory at that particular moment. Indeed, Ford testified that [i]f they came in the door unannounced late intentionally, how would I know they were there? Therefore, the handbook's unclarified and somewhat aspirational directive to teachers to supervise students at all times and Ford's uncontradicted testimony as to his long-standing classroom practices are insufficient to sustain plaintiff's burden to any reasonable jury. Moreover, in our view, the cases plaintiff cites from other jurisdictions applying the standard of care `which a person of ordinary prudence, charged with [comparable] duties, would exercise under the same circumstances' offer little guidance to establish that Ford breached his duty of supervision because they are factually distinct from this case. Dailey, 87 Cal.Rptr. 376, 470 P.2d at 363. We therefore disagree with plaintiff's argument that ample evidence existed on which a reasonable jury could find that Ford breached his duty of supervision because plaintiff did not present any evidence about how an ordinarily prudent teacher would act in the same circumstances. After reviewing the case law from other jurisdictions holding that teachers breached a duty to supervise, it is our opinion that these cases do not support a conclusion that plaintiff established sufficient evidence that a reasonable jury could find that Ford breached his duty. [6] For example, in Dailey, 87 Cal.Rptr. 376, 470 P.2d at 362, a case from the Supreme Court of California, a student died after falling and fracturing his skull in the course of slap box[ing] with a friend during their free time after the lunch period and before their next class commenced. The event lasted for five to ten minutes, and approximately thirty students gathered to observe. Id. The individual in the school department responsible for supervising the area where the injury occurred spent lunch time in the gym office. Id. He was seated away from the office windows, and a wall blocked his view of the area where the students' boxing match transpired. Id. at 363. Further, he did not leave the office nor notice the crowd of students or hear anything unusual. Id. The court held that the evidence was such that a jury could reasonably conclude that [the] employees    who were charged with the responsibility of providing supervision failed to exercise due care in performance of this duty. Id. at 365. The court reasoned that the evidence supported the holding because the individual did not station himself in the office in such a fashion as to maximize his ability to observe the students outside, but sat with his back to the window and did not hear or see the match despite of the fact that it occurred within a few feet of the gymnasium. Id. Here, however, Ford did not isolate himself in his office like the supervising teacher in Dailey, in complete dereliction of the duty to supervise. Rather, Ford actively carried out his obligations when he took attendance and observed his students for signs that they were capable of safely participating in class. Although Ford also did not position himself to maximize his view of the lab because his desk was in a position that traded off an improved view of the lab for access to the overhead projector, he still had a partial view of the lab, unlike the supervisor in Dailey, who sat with his back to the window and thus had no view of the area where the students were. Additionally, Ford heard the just seconds-long altercation occur and was immediately in the laboratory to assist Medeiros, unlike the supervisor in Dailey who did not hear the boxing match as it was ongoing for five to ten minutes. When compared with the evidence of breach of the duty to supervise in the cases plaintiff cites to support a conclusion that Ford breached his duty, the legally sufficient evidence presented in favor of the contention that a reasonable jury could find that Ford breached his duty of supervision is lacking. See also Wyke, 129 F.3d at 574; Roberson, 618 So.2d at 362; Collins, 471 So.2d at 565; Eisel, 597 A.2d at 456. After viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party as we must, we hold that there are no factual issues on which reasonable people might draw different conclusions. Accordingly, the plaintiff cannot prevail on a cause of action for negligence and the trial justice's grant of the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law was proper. [7]