School District Liability in Pupil Transportation
10/14/2016
School District Liability in Pupil Transportation Kayne M. Smith, Ed.D.
Overview This presentation will examine liability for Texas public school districts, specifically in student transportation. The purpose of this research is to ascertain potential liability for public schools for incidents that occur beyond vehicular accidents (i.e., vehicle crashes and collisions), such as incidents at a school bus stop, walking to the school bus stop, and student incidents on the bus not directly resulting from a vehicular collision, which may result in injury.
1
10/14/2016
Topic Background: School Transportation in Texas • La Morte (2011): • Believed that school administrators view themselves as “working in a climate of uncertainty as to the legality of their administrative decisions
• Wilkinson (2011): • Stressed that “pupil transportation is one of the school’s most serious responsibilities because of the very present possibility of injury or death” (p. 89).
2
10/14/2016
Pupil Transportation Background • American School Bus Council (ASBC): • • • •
5.7 billion miles annually 25 million children in the United States Alleviate car traffic at campuses Safest mode of transportation for students
Statement of the Problem • Limited resources to the topic of school transportation litigation. • Dragan (2010): • Acknowledged that there has been an increase in the areas of tort liability for schools in the past years.
• “When am I liable?”
3
10/14/2016
Significance of the Study • Investigate: • Texas Tort Claims Act as presented in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code • Sovereign immunity and how it relates to Texas public school district transportation services.
• • • •
Examine and analyze legal cases and court rulings Conducted to assist public school employees Safety is paramount in pupil transportation. Cognizant of legal issues and tort liability law
Research Questions • Central Research Question:
• When is a school district or school employee liable for tort litigation in pupil transportation-related incidents?
• Sub-Research Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.
How does the Texas Tort Claims Act and sovereign immunity apply to Texas school transportation services? What has previous case law found and determined in the area of school district immunity involving school bus related incidents? How have courts interpreted the motor vehicle exemption in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and the Texas Tort Claims Act? How have the courts interpreted the terms operation and use in the motor vehicle exemption of the Texas Tort Claims Act in tort cases involving pupil transportation services?
4
10/14/2016
Sub Research Question One • How does the Texas Tort Claims Act and sovereign immunity apply to Texas school transportation services? • This research has shown two distinct facts that must be acknowledged by all student transportation employees: • School bus drivers are considered professional employees under Section 21.174(b)(3) of the Texas Education Code, which requires school districts to “employ school bus drivers certified in accordance with standards and qualifications promulgated jointly by the State Board of Education and the Texas Department of Public Safety as required by law…” (Texas Education Code, Section 21.174(b)(3); LeLeaux v. Hamshire-Fannett ISD, 1992); and • Negligent use or operation of the motor vehicle may result in a waiver of immunity for a school district and/or a professional employee.
Sub Research Question Three • How have courts interpreted the motor vehicle exception in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and the Texas Tort Claims Act? • The courts have unequivocally determined that a school bus is a motor-driven vehicle and would fall under this statute within the Texas Tort Claims Act. • In Estate of Garza v. McAllen Independent School District (1981), the court specified that the fact that a school bus is a motordriven vehicle is not an issue.
5
10/14/2016
Summary of Cases (Sub-Research Question #2) Court Case Barr v. Bernhard (1978) Estate of Garza v. McAllen ISD (1981) Hopkins v. Spring ISD (1987) Hitchcock v. Garvin (1987)
Facts Immunity Waived? Student was injured when calf struck a support pole in the school agricultural building causing No the roof to collapse Student Wally Garza killed when Mark Trevino used knife to stab Garza while on school bus No District/employees failed to provide adequate medical care to student with cerebral palsy who No suffered convulsions on board school bus Student injured when she disembarked from school bus and then hit by a car crossing the street Yes due to failure of bus driver to activate red warning lights
Mount Pleasant ISD v. Lindburg (1989)
Child struck after disembarking school bus – bus was 100-200 yards away from scene of accident
No
Contreras v. Lufkin ISD (1991)
Student was released at wrong stop and killed when attempting to cross the street Two children sustained injuries when they were struck by a third-party vehicle while waiting at the bus stop for school bus Student injured after attempting to board bus through rear emergency exit door. One student injured and another killed in motor vehicle accident driven by the students’ friend after bus released students at nondesignated stop Student killed by motorist after disembarking bus and being signaled with bus horn by driver that it was safe to cross street Student with cognitive disabilities released himself from protective harness and exited bus through rear emergency door while bus was in motion Student was left on bus after bus returned to transportation facility and door was locked by bus driver and attendant
Yes
Breckenridge ISD v. Valdez (2006)
Student was left on bus after bus returned to transportation facility by bus driver and attendant
No
Houston ISD v. PERX (2014)
Claim of sexual assault on bus due to the failure to properly operate the security camera on the school bus
No
Luna v. Harlingen (1991) LeLeaux v. Hamshire-Fannett ISD (1992) Goston v. Hutchison (1993) Austin ISD v. Gutierrez (2001) Montoya v. Houston ISD (2005) Elgin ISD v. R.N. (2006)
No No No Yes No Yes
Barr v. Bernhard (1978) • Student was injured when calf struck a support pole in the school agricultural building causing the roof to collapse
6
10/14/2016
Estate of Garza v. McAllen ISD (1981) • Student Wally Garza killed when Mark Trevino used knife to stab Garza while on school bus
Hopkins v. Spring ISD (1987) • District/employees failed to provide adequate medical care to student with cerebral palsy who suffered convulsions on board school bus
7
10/14/2016
Hitchcock v. Garvin (1987) • Student injured when she disembarked from school bus and then hit by a car crossing the street due to failure of bus driver to activate red warning lights
Mount Pleasant ISD v. Lindburg (1989) • Child struck after disembarking school bus – bus was 100-200 yards away from scene of accident
8
10/14/2016
Contreras v. Lufkin ISD (1991) • Student was released at wrong stop and killed when attempting to cross the street
Luna v. Harlingen (1991) • Two children sustained injuries when they were struck by a third-party vehicle while waiting at the bus stop for school bus
9
10/14/2016
LeLeaux v. Hamshire-Fannett ISD (1992) • Student injured after attempting to board bus through rear emergency exit door.
Goston v. Hutchison (1993) • One student injured and another killed in motor vehicle accident driven by the students’ friend after bus released students at nondesignated stop
10
10/14/2016
Austin ISD v. Gutierrez (2001) • Student killed by motorist after disembarking bus and being signaled with bus horn by driver that it was safe to cross street
Montoya v. Houston ISD (2005) • Student with cognitive disabilities released himself from protective harness and exited bus through rear emergency door while bus was in motion
11
10/14/2016
Elgin ISD v. R.N. (2006) • Student was left on bus after bus returned to transportation facility and door was locked by bus driver and attendant
Breckenridge ISD v. Valdez (2006) • Student was left on bus after bus returned to transportation facility by bus driver and attendant
12
10/14/2016
Houston ISD v. PERX (2014) • Claim of sexual assault on bus due to the failure to properly operate the security camera on the school bus
Sub Research Question Four • How have the courts interpreted the terms “operation” and “use” in the motor vehicle exception of the Texas Tort Claims Act in tort cases involving pupil transportation services? • Use: • “meaning to put or bring into action or service; to employ for or apply for a given purpose” (Garza v. McAllen ISD, 1981); • “the act or practice of employing something (Luna v. Harlingen Independent School District, 1991).
• Operation: • “doing or performing of a work or of something involving practical application of principles or processes” (Hitchcock v. Garvin, 1987).
13
10/14/2016
Central Research Question • When is a school district or school employee liable for tort litigation in pupil transportation-related incidents? • This research has shown that for a court to find a waiver of sovereign immunity and liability for injuries sustained due to a school bus-related incident, Texas courts have consistently required the following: • a nexus between the use and operation of the motor-driven vehicle or equipment and the plaintiff’s injuries constituting more than just the simple involvement of the property; • the use of the vehicle must have actually caused the injury complained of by the claimant; • the operation or use of a motor vehicle does not cause injury and thus constitute a waiver of immunity if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible; and • when the vehicle is only the setting for the injury and the injury is not a result of the operation or use of a motor vehicle, immunity for liability is not waived.
Was the bus present? Court Case Barr v. Bernhard (1978) Estate of Garza v. McAllen ISD (1981) Hopkins v. Spring ISD (1987) Hitchcock v. Garvin (1987) Mount Pleasant ISD v. Lindburg (1989) Contreras v. Lufkin ISD (1991) Luna v. Harlingen (1991) LeLeaux v. Hamshire-Fannett ISD (1992) Goston v. Hutchison (1993) Austin ISD v. Gutierrez (2001) Montoya v. Houston ISD (2005) Elgin ISD v. R.N. (2006) Breckenridge ISD v. Valdez (2006) Houston ISD v. PERX (2014)
Was the bus present? N/A Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Did the District Negligent Operation? Waive Immunity? No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No
14
10/14/2016
Third Party Injury Case Contreras Hitchcock Luna
Allegations of negligence against school district Let student off bus at wrong stop Did not activate flashing lights Bad plan for bus stops
Injury on bus or before/after loading After
Injury by 3rd person method Auto
Did the motor vehicle exception bar suit No
After
Auto
No
Before
Auto
Yes
Heyer
Did not control parking lot and traffic
Before
Auto
Yes
Garza
Did not provide safe transportation
On
Knife
Yes
Goston
Let students off at unapproved bus stop
After
Auto
Yes
Findings • The following items are the main concepts identified in this research to determine if a school district is liable for acts involving the operation and use of a motor vehicle: • Nearly every action a school district performs is classified as a governmental function; • The primary function of the Texas Tort Claims Act and sovereign immunity is to protect governmental entities (i.e., school districts) from litigation and damages, thus also protecting Texas taxpayers; • Texas courts have consistently required a nexus between the operation and use of the motordriven vehicle or equipment and the plaintiff’s injuries constituting more than just simple involvement of the property: the use or operation of the vehicle must have actually caused the injury complained of by the claimant; • The operation or use of a motor vehicle does not cause injury and constitute a waiver of immunity if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible; • Damages must be proximately caused by the negligent use or operation of the motor vehicle for the school district to waive immunity; • When the vehicle is only the setting for the injury and the injury is not a result in the operation or use of the motor vehicle, immunity for liability is not waived; and • It takes an affirmative action actually using the bus for the school district to waive immunity.
15
School District Liability in Pupil Transportation Kayne M. Smith, Ed.D.
Overview This presentation will examine liability for Texas public school districts, specifically in student transportation. The purpose of this research is to ascertain potential liability for public schools for incidents that occur beyond vehicular accidents (i.e., vehicle crashes and collisions), such as incidents at a school bus stop, walking to the school bus stop, and student incidents on the bus not directly resulting from a vehicular collision, which may result in injury.
1
10/14/2016
Topic Background: School Transportation in Texas • La Morte (2011): • Believed that school administrators view themselves as “working in a climate of uncertainty as to the legality of their administrative decisions
• Wilkinson (2011): • Stressed that “pupil transportation is one of the school’s most serious responsibilities because of the very present possibility of injury or death” (p. 89).
2
10/14/2016
Pupil Transportation Background • American School Bus Council (ASBC): • • • •
5.7 billion miles annually 25 million children in the United States Alleviate car traffic at campuses Safest mode of transportation for students
Statement of the Problem • Limited resources to the topic of school transportation litigation. • Dragan (2010): • Acknowledged that there has been an increase in the areas of tort liability for schools in the past years.
• “When am I liable?”
3
10/14/2016
Significance of the Study • Investigate: • Texas Tort Claims Act as presented in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code • Sovereign immunity and how it relates to Texas public school district transportation services.
• • • •
Examine and analyze legal cases and court rulings Conducted to assist public school employees Safety is paramount in pupil transportation. Cognizant of legal issues and tort liability law
Research Questions • Central Research Question:
• When is a school district or school employee liable for tort litigation in pupil transportation-related incidents?
• Sub-Research Questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.
How does the Texas Tort Claims Act and sovereign immunity apply to Texas school transportation services? What has previous case law found and determined in the area of school district immunity involving school bus related incidents? How have courts interpreted the motor vehicle exemption in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and the Texas Tort Claims Act? How have the courts interpreted the terms operation and use in the motor vehicle exemption of the Texas Tort Claims Act in tort cases involving pupil transportation services?
4
10/14/2016
Sub Research Question One • How does the Texas Tort Claims Act and sovereign immunity apply to Texas school transportation services? • This research has shown two distinct facts that must be acknowledged by all student transportation employees: • School bus drivers are considered professional employees under Section 21.174(b)(3) of the Texas Education Code, which requires school districts to “employ school bus drivers certified in accordance with standards and qualifications promulgated jointly by the State Board of Education and the Texas Department of Public Safety as required by law…” (Texas Education Code, Section 21.174(b)(3); LeLeaux v. Hamshire-Fannett ISD, 1992); and • Negligent use or operation of the motor vehicle may result in a waiver of immunity for a school district and/or a professional employee.
Sub Research Question Three • How have courts interpreted the motor vehicle exception in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and the Texas Tort Claims Act? • The courts have unequivocally determined that a school bus is a motor-driven vehicle and would fall under this statute within the Texas Tort Claims Act. • In Estate of Garza v. McAllen Independent School District (1981), the court specified that the fact that a school bus is a motordriven vehicle is not an issue.
5
10/14/2016
Summary of Cases (Sub-Research Question #2) Court Case Barr v. Bernhard (1978) Estate of Garza v. McAllen ISD (1981) Hopkins v. Spring ISD (1987) Hitchcock v. Garvin (1987)
Facts Immunity Waived? Student was injured when calf struck a support pole in the school agricultural building causing No the roof to collapse Student Wally Garza killed when Mark Trevino used knife to stab Garza while on school bus No District/employees failed to provide adequate medical care to student with cerebral palsy who No suffered convulsions on board school bus Student injured when she disembarked from school bus and then hit by a car crossing the street Yes due to failure of bus driver to activate red warning lights
Mount Pleasant ISD v. Lindburg (1989)
Child struck after disembarking school bus – bus was 100-200 yards away from scene of accident
No
Contreras v. Lufkin ISD (1991)
Student was released at wrong stop and killed when attempting to cross the street Two children sustained injuries when they were struck by a third-party vehicle while waiting at the bus stop for school bus Student injured after attempting to board bus through rear emergency exit door. One student injured and another killed in motor vehicle accident driven by the students’ friend after bus released students at nondesignated stop Student killed by motorist after disembarking bus and being signaled with bus horn by driver that it was safe to cross street Student with cognitive disabilities released himself from protective harness and exited bus through rear emergency door while bus was in motion Student was left on bus after bus returned to transportation facility and door was locked by bus driver and attendant
Yes
Breckenridge ISD v. Valdez (2006)
Student was left on bus after bus returned to transportation facility by bus driver and attendant
No
Houston ISD v. PERX (2014)
Claim of sexual assault on bus due to the failure to properly operate the security camera on the school bus
No
Luna v. Harlingen (1991) LeLeaux v. Hamshire-Fannett ISD (1992) Goston v. Hutchison (1993) Austin ISD v. Gutierrez (2001) Montoya v. Houston ISD (2005) Elgin ISD v. R.N. (2006)
No No No Yes No Yes
Barr v. Bernhard (1978) • Student was injured when calf struck a support pole in the school agricultural building causing the roof to collapse
6
10/14/2016
Estate of Garza v. McAllen ISD (1981) • Student Wally Garza killed when Mark Trevino used knife to stab Garza while on school bus
Hopkins v. Spring ISD (1987) • District/employees failed to provide adequate medical care to student with cerebral palsy who suffered convulsions on board school bus
7
10/14/2016
Hitchcock v. Garvin (1987) • Student injured when she disembarked from school bus and then hit by a car crossing the street due to failure of bus driver to activate red warning lights
Mount Pleasant ISD v. Lindburg (1989) • Child struck after disembarking school bus – bus was 100-200 yards away from scene of accident
8
10/14/2016
Contreras v. Lufkin ISD (1991) • Student was released at wrong stop and killed when attempting to cross the street
Luna v. Harlingen (1991) • Two children sustained injuries when they were struck by a third-party vehicle while waiting at the bus stop for school bus
9
10/14/2016
LeLeaux v. Hamshire-Fannett ISD (1992) • Student injured after attempting to board bus through rear emergency exit door.
Goston v. Hutchison (1993) • One student injured and another killed in motor vehicle accident driven by the students’ friend after bus released students at nondesignated stop
10
10/14/2016
Austin ISD v. Gutierrez (2001) • Student killed by motorist after disembarking bus and being signaled with bus horn by driver that it was safe to cross street
Montoya v. Houston ISD (2005) • Student with cognitive disabilities released himself from protective harness and exited bus through rear emergency door while bus was in motion
11
10/14/2016
Elgin ISD v. R.N. (2006) • Student was left on bus after bus returned to transportation facility and door was locked by bus driver and attendant
Breckenridge ISD v. Valdez (2006) • Student was left on bus after bus returned to transportation facility by bus driver and attendant
12
10/14/2016
Houston ISD v. PERX (2014) • Claim of sexual assault on bus due to the failure to properly operate the security camera on the school bus
Sub Research Question Four • How have the courts interpreted the terms “operation” and “use” in the motor vehicle exception of the Texas Tort Claims Act in tort cases involving pupil transportation services? • Use: • “meaning to put or bring into action or service; to employ for or apply for a given purpose” (Garza v. McAllen ISD, 1981); • “the act or practice of employing something (Luna v. Harlingen Independent School District, 1991).
• Operation: • “doing or performing of a work or of something involving practical application of principles or processes” (Hitchcock v. Garvin, 1987).
13
10/14/2016
Central Research Question • When is a school district or school employee liable for tort litigation in pupil transportation-related incidents? • This research has shown that for a court to find a waiver of sovereign immunity and liability for injuries sustained due to a school bus-related incident, Texas courts have consistently required the following: • a nexus between the use and operation of the motor-driven vehicle or equipment and the plaintiff’s injuries constituting more than just the simple involvement of the property; • the use of the vehicle must have actually caused the injury complained of by the claimant; • the operation or use of a motor vehicle does not cause injury and thus constitute a waiver of immunity if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible; and • when the vehicle is only the setting for the injury and the injury is not a result of the operation or use of a motor vehicle, immunity for liability is not waived.
Was the bus present? Court Case Barr v. Bernhard (1978) Estate of Garza v. McAllen ISD (1981) Hopkins v. Spring ISD (1987) Hitchcock v. Garvin (1987) Mount Pleasant ISD v. Lindburg (1989) Contreras v. Lufkin ISD (1991) Luna v. Harlingen (1991) LeLeaux v. Hamshire-Fannett ISD (1992) Goston v. Hutchison (1993) Austin ISD v. Gutierrez (2001) Montoya v. Houston ISD (2005) Elgin ISD v. R.N. (2006) Breckenridge ISD v. Valdez (2006) Houston ISD v. PERX (2014)
Was the bus present? N/A Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Did the District Negligent Operation? Waive Immunity? No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No
14
10/14/2016
Third Party Injury Case Contreras Hitchcock Luna
Allegations of negligence against school district Let student off bus at wrong stop Did not activate flashing lights Bad plan for bus stops
Injury on bus or before/after loading After
Injury by 3rd person method Auto
Did the motor vehicle exception bar suit No
After
Auto
No
Before
Auto
Yes
Heyer
Did not control parking lot and traffic
Before
Auto
Yes
Garza
Did not provide safe transportation
On
Knife
Yes
Goston
Let students off at unapproved bus stop
After
Auto
Yes
Findings • The following items are the main concepts identified in this research to determine if a school district is liable for acts involving the operation and use of a motor vehicle: • Nearly every action a school district performs is classified as a governmental function; • The primary function of the Texas Tort Claims Act and sovereign immunity is to protect governmental entities (i.e., school districts) from litigation and damages, thus also protecting Texas taxpayers; • Texas courts have consistently required a nexus between the operation and use of the motordriven vehicle or equipment and the plaintiff’s injuries constituting more than just simple involvement of the property: the use or operation of the vehicle must have actually caused the injury complained of by the claimant; • The operation or use of a motor vehicle does not cause injury and constitute a waiver of immunity if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible; • Damages must be proximately caused by the negligent use or operation of the motor vehicle for the school district to waive immunity; • When the vehicle is only the setting for the injury and the injury is not a result in the operation or use of the motor vehicle, immunity for liability is not waived; and • It takes an affirmative action actually using the bus for the school district to waive immunity.
15
