Assumption of risk cannot possibly be a defense here, because it is absurd to say that a 12-year-old boy "assumed the risk" that his teachers would fail to supervise him. That is a risk a great many children would happily assume, but they are not allowed to assume it for the same reason that the duty to supervise exists in the first place: Children are not mature, and it is for adults, not children, to decide how much supervision they need.
The attorneys at the Law Offices of H. Jeffrey Marcus, P.C. provide representation to parents who believe their kids are not being properly served. In this blog, I present current developments in special education law. The focus is on recent federal and New York State cases and important legislative and regulatory developments.
If you are a parent in need of help for a child with a disability, please email us at firstname.lastname@example.org, call us at 716-634-2753 or contact us through our website.
Law Offices of H. Jeffrey Marcus P.C.
Friday, April 9, 2010
New York Court of Appeals addresses assumption of risk defense in school context
Trupia v. Lake George: Generally the content of this blog is limited to special education issues. This case, while not a special education case, could nonetheless be of interest to folks reading the blog. The case addresses the doctrine of assumption of risk in a school context. The majority opinion is a bit obtuse, thus I quote from the concurring opinion to summarize the gist of the case:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)