Opinion ID: 1480725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Duty to Supervise

Text: The plaintiff argues that Ford had a duty of [c]onstant supervision of the students and was required to remain with them. The plaintiff asserts that this duty is established by G.L.1956 § 16-2-17, which provides that students have a right to attend    a school which is safe and secure, and which is conducive to learning, and which is free from the threat, actual or implied, of physical harm by a disruptive student and by the Rogers High School Teacher's Handbook, which directs teachers to supervise students at all times. The plaintiff further directs our attention to case law from other jurisdictions, requiring schools and their faculties to exercise the care `which a person of ordinary prudence, charged with [comparable] duties, would exercise under the same circumstances' when they supervise students. Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 2 Cal.3d 741, 87 Cal.Rptr. 376, 470 P.2d 360, 363 (1970); see also Wyke v. Polk County School Board, 129 F.3d 560, 571 (11th Cir.1997); Roberson v. Duval County School Board, 618 So.2d 360, 362 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993); Collins v. School Board of Broward County, 471 So.2d 560, 564 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985); Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, 324 Md. 376, 597 A.2d 447, 451-52 (1991). The defendants concede that Ford had a duty to supervise his students. Indeed, Ford testified that he was responsible for supervising the students in his class. [5] Therefore, for the purposes of this appeal, we will assume, without deciding, that Ford had a duty to supervise Medeiros, Burd, and Carlton under the particular facts in this case.