In the US, you are never to blame

[RedTomato]

If there was a well-trained teacher supervising the kids, and he left quickly because of an injury, then there is no moral fault with the teacher or the school, but factually it could be their fault because the second accident happened when no supervisor was present.

Technically, the school would be at fault in that situation as health and saftely rules are there to prevent injuries or accidents happening to someone who is responsible for looking after a room of students, and thus leaving the students unprotected.

 

[szark]

I was also using power tools just out of middle school (12-13). I think the kids probably had enough safety instruction before being allowed to use the tools, and were told never to use the tools in the instructor's absence.

A New York man claimed in a lawsuit filed on Wednesday that he found a knife with a 7-inch (18-cm) blade baked into the bread of his foot-long "Cold Cut Trio" Subway sandwich.

Having worked at Subway, I can't imagine any scenario where this could have happened accidentally. If the customer is telling the truth, someone did this deliberately.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Technically, the school would be at fault in that situation as health and saftely rules are there to prevent injuries or accidents happening to someone who is responsible for looking after a room of students, and thus leaving the students unprotected.

You can do things to reduce the likelihood of accidents and injuries but there is no way to prevent them especially when you are dealing w/naturally risky situations.


Lethal

 

[CanadaRAM]

So, going extreme example here, if a student shoves a paper clip into a power socket and gets shocked the school should be at fault for not child-proofing the wall plugs?

The problem with extreme examples is that they are extreme to the point of non-validity. Of course there is no way to eliminate all risks. But what measures are reasonable, prudent, and expected?

12 and 13 year olds need to be supervised in a dangerous environment -- or if that is not possible, the danger needs to be removed, or the students need to be removed from the environment. Put in a supervising staff member, turn off the tools, or move the students to the cafeteria or library for a study period. Too easy.

The principle of attractive nuisance is well established. If you have an in-ground swimming pool, and you do not fence it to block access, you are responsible if a child drowns in your pool, regardless if you posted keep out signs, and regardless if the child was trespassing/stupid/careless.

Besides the power tools being both dangerous and fun to play with, there is also the schools responsibility of care to the students (in loco parentis -- in the place of the parents)

 

[LethalWolfe]

The problem with extreme examples is that they are extreme to the point of non-validity. Of course there is no way to eliminate all risks. But what measures are reasonable, prudent, and expected?

My point exactly. Were these students not properly trained to use the tools they were given and left alone in a haphazard way, or did someone just make a mistake and an opportunistic parent is trying to cash in on their child's misfortune? W/o knowing more about the details of the case none of us can do anything but pointlessly speculate.

12 and 13 year olds need to be supervised in a dangerous environment -- or if that is not possible, the danger needs to be removed, or the students need to be removed from the environment. Put in a supervising staff member, turn off the tools, or move the students to the cafeteria or library for a study period. Too easy.

Was the student’s injury a result of lack of supervision? Did the teacher’s absence impede the student’s ability to seek medical attention in a timely fashion? Even if the teacher was there what if he was helping another student when the accident happened? The teacher can’t handhold all the students all the time. Reasonable and customary measures can only go so far and there is no way to 100% ensure someone’s safety. But, again, w/o knowing the details we are just speculating.

The principle of attractive nuisance is well established. If you have an in-ground swimming pool, and you do not fence it to block access, you are responsible if a child drowns in your pool, regardless if you posted keep out signs, and regardless if the child was trespassing/stupid/careless.

Not really a parallel situation, IMO. These are students enrolled in a construction class not 3 year olds that we need to make sure don’t wander into their neighbors backyard pool and drown.

Was it neglect by the school? Carelessness of the student? Or just an accident?


Lethal

 

[bluebomberman]

True, however, it sounds like the teacher was injured and left suddenly. Are we ridiculous in expecting that kids in a class where an adult was just injured might have a modicum of caution?

Ideally, the students would have been dismissed because the adult supervisor had to leave.

There are many frivolous lawsuits in this country, but this one doesn't strike me as an obvious one.

EDIT: If there was a knife in my Subway sandwich, you'd bet I'd sue. I don't want to hear any whining about "personal responsibility" on this one - I don't check for sharp blades of metal in my sandwiches and no amount of scolding will make me start.