Running head: Legal Case Study Analysis

Legal Case Study Analysis Assignment

Student: Karleen Reynolds
Professor: Dr. Yvette Daniel
Course: Education Foundations, Law, and Ethics 80-205 (3)

Running head: Legal Case Study Analysis

Summary of case
Thomas v. Brookview District School Board is a lawsuit about an incident that took place
between Jayden Thomas, a fifth grade student at Brookview District School board, the classmate
who injured him, and the physical education teacher. During a physical education class that
Jayden was participating in, the teacher noticed the class was becoming restless and out of
control. The teacher ended the class early to discuss the unacceptable behaviors that were
displayed in class and the importance of listening and following directions in class. Afterwards,
the students were dismissed and sent to the locker room where the teacher usually accompanies
them. However, on that day, the teacher stayed back to speak with a student for a couple of
minutes. In the locker room, the disruptive behaviour continued, and as a result, Jayden was
pushed by a classmate causing him to fall into a locker and bench causing him injury.
This injury resulted in Jayden having to undergo an emergency surgery due to the extent
of his injury. As a result of the teacher staying in the gym to talk to a student for three to four
minutes, Jayden was injured and his parents sued the school board on the grounds that their sons
injuries were caused by a lack of student adult supervision. When the case was presented before
the court, the school board was held liable for foreseeable injuries caused by a lack of
supervision by the teacher. Furthermore, the court found favor in Jayden because the events
leading up to the incident showed that students were misbehaving that day, therefore, the teacher
should have supervised the students up until their next class because the students behaviors were
foreseeable. Although the case states what exactly transpired, it fails to describe certain facts
such as who instigated the fight with Jayden? How were the students acting out of control? Were
they talking loudly or playing roughly with one another? We also do not know who initiated the
conversation that led the teacher to stay behind. How do we know that the teacher did not stay

Running head: Legal Case Study Analysis

behind because the student asked to urgently speak with him directly at that moment? All of
these questions are alternative perspectives that should be considered. This case is about the lack
of supervision by the teacher during physical education class that led to the injury of Jayden
inflicted by another student.
The main issues with this case is that the teacher saw that the behavior of the students
were out of control that day and this should have been a good indicator to him to have been extra
attentive towards the students until they were dismissed from class. The second issue is that the
teacher didnt follow normal procedure of following students into the locker room prior to
dismissal that day. The secondary issues from this case are that the teacher was having a
conversation with another student while the altercation was taking place in the locker room.
Another secondary issue is the court stating that although schools owe a responsibility of care
towards their students, they cannot always guarantee student safety at all times. This statement is
problematic because if a school cannot always guarantee student safety then a teacher should not
be held liable for anything unless it is a clear indication of intentional endangerment on behalf of
the teacher towards the student.
Identification of relevant laws
This case has many laws, rules, and regulations that are applicable and favor Jaydens law
suit. First, in section 265 (1) of the Education Act, principals are required to maintain the order of
the school which adheres to making sure that pupils are safe within the school environment, and
students are properly supervised at school and in school activities (Kitchen & Dean, 2010, p.80).
In this case, the teacher supervision was inadequate because the teacher was not present with the
students for regulatory dismissal routine, which does not adhere to regulations that state that
teachers are required to supervise areas of the school other than the classroom in section 20 of

Running head: Legal Case Study Analysis

regulation 298 under the Education Act (p.68). Furthermore, this regulation outlines that
supervision of students should be done at all times in order to maintain a safe school
environment.
Another law that is relevant to this case is elements of negligence. In civil law
negligence is defined as the failure to use reasonable care (Kitchen & Dean, 2010, p.128).
Failure to use reasonable care can also be looked at in terms of the teacher being absent from the
scene of the altercation, which is seen as an act of negligence. The reason why negligence is
applicable for this case is because according to duty of care in civil law, A teacher can be found
guilty if his or her unintentional actions were judged to have contributed to an injury (Kitchen
& Dean, 2010, p.128). Unintentional or not this teacher was found guilty, and as a result of not
being present at the scene of the incident, Jayden was injured. Consequently, this is why the
teacher is being held guilty of negligence, because he breached the duty of care. According to
duty of care in civil law, there are four elements of negligence. However, for my analysis I will
be focusing on two: when a teacher breaches duty of care that is owed to students, and when
actual damage or loss is sustained (Kitchen & Dean, 2010, p.129). These two elements of
negligence are applicable for the Thomas case because the teacher breached the duty of care with
not being present in the locker room, and Jaydens injury as a result. For cases of negligence
according to the civil law which operates under principles known as the law of tort, when
damage or loss takes place, financial compensation is given to the plaintiff (Kitchen & Dean,
2010, p.129). Furthermore, tort is financial award that is granted to a plaintiff for harm or loss
due to intentional or unintentional acts (Kitchen & Dean, 2010, p.130). In tort law, financial
award is granted on the premise that the defendant breached duty of care which resulted in

Running head: Legal Case Study Analysis

damage; therefore, the plaintiff is owed compensation. The tort law was used in the Thomas
case, as the teacher/ school board owed compensation to the student injured.
In common law, the duty of care for students is the responsibility of the teacher and
school due to the fact that they have a fiduciary relationship with students and the parents who
entrust their children to the school (Kitchen & Dean, 2010, p.130).This responsibility in common
law is known as loco parentis, which means in the place of a parent, teachers and schools are
held to a manner of trust (Kitchen & Dean, 2010, p.130). In the Thomas case, loco parentis was
held against the teacher because he failed in his duty to be a prudent parent due to the fact that he
did not exercise a higher standard of care for students (Kitchen & Dean, 2010, p.135). I believe
that being a loco parentis not only in school but outside of school is a great responsibility on
teachers, which is sometimes unfair due to the amount of pressure, liability, and unforeseeable
incidents that may occur that a teacher may be held accountable for even if it was not intentional.
Connection to a similar case
A similar case that coincides with the Thomas v. Brookview District School Board case
is, Myers v. Peel Country Board of Education (1981). First, this case highlights how school
boards are responsible for the duty of care for students at all times whether or not a teacher is
present. In both of these cases there was a lack of adult supervision which resulted in physical
injuries. In the Thomas case, the first act of negligence was the breached duty of care the teacher
owed to the student, which was seen when the teacher was not present in the locker room during
the incident. In the Myers case, the student was practicing gymnastics in a room at school with
no supervision and he attempted to do a routine which led him to fall and break his neck because
the spotter had left. For instance, it was said that gymnastics is dangerous and that an adult

Running head: Legal Case Study Analysis

supervisor should have been present in order to minimize and ensure proper safety procedures
were taken (Kitchen & Dean, 2010, p.135). Because of the foreseen danger that gymnastics
brings, ultimately an adult should have been present. In addition, if a teacher was present, at least
the teacher could have spotted the student from falling, and this could have possibly changed the
outcome of the case (Kitchen & Dean, 2010, p.135). Moreover, in both cases, there was a
breached duty of care owed to the student, and a lack of adult supervision. Equally these cases
violate the duty of care outlined in civil law.
Reasoned opinion on case
I agree with the courts decision to grant Jayden compensation for his injury under the
tort law because as it was stated, the teacher knew that the students behaviour was not
appropriate that day, and therefore the teacher should have followed the students into the locker
room to ensure that their behaviors were watched/ controlled up until dismissal. I believe the
court used the appropriate laws to use against this teacher such as: breached duty of care,
negligence under law of tort, lack of proper supervision under regulation 298, section 11(3) (e)
(f), and the duty of care in common and civil law. The teacher should have had the conversation
that he was having with the student in the locker room, because then the teacher would have been
present in the locker room to potentially stop the altercation from happening, or getting worse.
Furthermore, even if the teacher was there and the student pushed Jayden, would the teacher still
be held accountable? I think that if the teacher was there he wouldnt have been held accountable
for Jaydens injuries because he followed the proper procedures of being present with the
students at all times, and the incident would have not been foreseeable. Alternatively, if the
teacher was present, I think the case would have been between Jayden and the student, and the

Running head: Legal Case Study Analysis

parents would have charged the student for assault or the student would have been expelled or
suspended.
Implications for classroom
As an educator, I learned that it is important to have a firm understanding of ones roles
and duties as a teacher, and ones liabilities when joining the practice. I believe there should be
training in order to make sure teachers have a comprehensive understanding of the legal
implications that can arise during ones teaching practice. For example, I think when one gets
hired by a particular school board, there should be a great emphasis placed on a mandatory
training session on the legal and ethical procedures/considerations that can arise in education, as
well as the documentation procedures. This kind of training can help educators become more
comfortable about how to make the right decision and consideration when it comes to students
well-beings. In theory, laws and regulations should be enforced on a regular basis, however, in
practice teaching, I saw many regulations and laws that were adhered to, and some that were not.
For instance, on many occasions, my associate teacher would have to call the teacher from across
the hall if he had to leave the classroom because legally, student teachers are not allowed to be in
a classroom alone with students. If the teacher was not present and something happened to a
student, the school would be held liable, and similar to the mentioned cases, an incident like this
can be grounds for a negligence case. It was great to see these kinds of laws being taken
seriously in many of the schools I had the opportunity to teach at. Furthermore, schools should
adopt risk management strategies that can limit the chance of injury and reduce the chances of
a successful negligence suit, would be in the best interest of the students and the school board.
(Kitchen & Dean, 2010, p.137). Overall, school boards should continue to practice these

Running head: Legal Case Study Analysis

regulations and work towards ways to improve teacher knowledge and confidence in riskmanagement.

Running head: Legal Case Study Analysis

Reference page
Kitchen, J., & Dean, C. (2010). Professionalism, law, and the Ontario educator. St. Davids ON:
Highland Press.