Discuss the Extent and Limitations of the Application of This Principle in Education

...

The incident happened outside the school premises and before school hours. The defendants, the Minister of Education and Human Resources and the Director of Education argued that the plaintiff was therefore not under the custody of any educational authorities. Furthermore, the plaintiff was over the age of sixteen at the time and was also repeatedly warned to stay away from the hazardous, out-of-bounds area. Article 1036 states that over the age of fourteen, one is responsible for his own actions. Moreover, the headmaster of the school, who is of course also in loco parentis with his students was exonerated because he had reported the damaged gate and he called for it to be fixed. The headmaster also lamented (both verbally and more importantly for the case, in writing) with the Education Department about students being dropped off early at school by school transport. The students spend these early hours unsupervised. The headmaster had also raised the issue of the hazardous shelter with the Department of Education to bring up the matter with the Commissioner of Land. The court found the culpa being three fourths of the Director of Education and the Commissioner of Land for not providing a safe environment and for not providing the proper vigilance of students. One fourth of the culpa was the actor’s due mostly to the fact that at his age, as argued by the Director of Education, he should have followed the instruction to stay away from the site.

While it is impossible or ineffective to wrap a student in bubble wrap forever to eliminate any accidents, an educator should feel a sense of responsibility towards his students. Having the right attitude – acting as a bonus paterfamilias – an educator is a main player in the safekeeping of the child. Keeping an eye out and keeping level headed, not tolerating any form of potential deterrent to the students’ wellbeing and reporting in writing any issue will not only safeguard the children but also the educator.

References

Hogan, J. C., & Schwartz, M. D. (1987) In loco parentis in the United States 1765–1985. The Journal of Legal History, 8(3), 260-274.

Jackson, B. (1991). The Lingering Legacy of In Loco Parentis: An Historical Survey and Proposal for Reform. Vanderbilt Law Review 44 (October).

Lake, P. F. (1999). The Rise of Duty and the Fall of In Loco Parentis and Other Protective Tort Doctrines in Higher Education Law. Missouri Law Review, 64(1).

Ovey, C., & White, R. (2006). Jacobs and White: The European Convention of Human Rights. UK: Oxford University Press.

Stamatakos, T. C. (1990). The Doctrine of In Loco Parentis, Tort Liability and the Student-College Relationship. Indiana Law Journal, 65(2), 471-491.

Stig, J. (1974-1975) Liability and Fault, 49 Tul. L. Rev. 329 (NOTE 1)

Zirkel, P. A., & Reichner, H. F. (1986). Is the “In Loco Parentis” Doctrine Dead? Journal of Law and Education, 15(3), 271-283.