Opinion ID: 2119572
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: safety and security procedures

Text: Because we are remanding this cause for further proceedings, we will address one aspect of A.W.'s fourth assignment of error. In support of her fourth assignment of error, A.W. argues that the safety and security plan in place at the time of the assault did not comply with relevant state law. Under regulations promulgated by the Nebraska Department of Education, each school system is required to have a safety and security plan for the schools in the system. The plan addresses the safety and security of students, staff, and visitors. [64] And that plan is to be reviewed annually by a school safety and security committee and by outside parties. [65] A.W. argues that the plan in place for LPS and Arnold Elementary School did not satisfy this regulation. But to begin with, it is not clear precisely how this argument helps establish A.W.'s claim for relief. A statute, for instance, may give rise to a tort duty to act in the manner required by the statute where the statute is enacted to protect a class of persons which includes the plaintiff, the statute is intended to prevent the particular injury that has been suffered, and the statute is intended by the Legislature to create a private liability as distinguished from one of a public character. [66] Although we have suggested that a regulation may be relevant as evidence of the standard of care, [67] we have never held that an administrative regulation can similarly expand the scope of tort liability beyond the general duty to exercise reasonable care. In this case, the regulations at issue are promulgated as accreditation standards, not standards for tort liability, [68] and contain no explicit qualitative requirements. They plainly do not give rise to a tort duty beyond the duty of reasonable care that was discussed above. They could, however, serve as relevant evidence of the standard of care and whether the standard of care was breached. But at this juncture, it is neither necessary nor proper to determine in this appeal whether these statutes and regulations would be admissible evidence at trial. The admissibility will be determined by the context in which such evidence is offered (if offered) at trial.