The Responsibility Developing Greider Individual Education Program - Case Study Example

GREIDER v. SHAWNEE MISSION UNIFIED SCHOOL D. 512 The case The case “Alexander GREIDER, a minor by and through his Father and Next Friend, Timothy D.Individual Education Program ("IEP") GREIDER, Plaintiff, v. SHAWNEE MISSION UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT # 512, JOHNSON COUNTY, STATE OF KANSAS Mark Isenberg, and Defendants” was decided in the United States on March 17, 1989 (Leagle, n.p.). Background The plaintiff in the case, which took place in 1985, was called Alexander Greider. By then, he was in his eighth grade, at Trail Ridge Junior High, where he was studying an industrial arts course instructed by Mark Isenberg, who is the defendant in the case. While the plaintiff was using a table saw in the class, he accidentally cut, which lead to the defendant school classifying him as a behaviourally disturbed child, a condition that is stipulated was stipulated as Handicapped by EHA.1 As per EHA, the district was charged with the responsibility developing Greider Individual Education Program ("IEP"), whereby the school together with the parent meet from time to time to assess the progress of the child. During the annual review of the IEP, a special education teacher was required to make decisions regarding the kind of classes that the handicapped child was supposed to attend. In reaction to this requirement, Trail Ridge Junior High’s special education teacher decided that Greider should attend a class in Isenberg’s woodworking. As such, the teacher alleged that this Isenberg was informed about Greider’s handicapped condition, as well as his problems and needs. Even so, Isenberg claimed that he did not recall receiving such information from the special teacher. Later, Greider cut himself with a table saw while attending a class in Isenberg’s woodworking workshop. In response, Greider’s father teamed up with a friend called Timothy D. and sued Isenberg and school district for negligence. In the suit, the plaintiff argued that the defendants were negligent because they failed to take reasonable measures to save him from harm. In Greider’s view, the mistakes that were committed included failure to inform Isenberg of his enrolment as well as his condition, subjecting him into a class without considering his behavioural disturbance, and failing to offer appropriate safety measures and caution on the table saw. In addition, the plaintiff challenged the defendants for their negligence for not taking proper actions to safeguard him from being injured while in the woodworking class. In response to the accusation, the defendants argued that they are entitled to immunity under the Kansa Tort Claims Act,2 since all basis upon which the plaintiff was complaining were discretionary in nature. The issues The issues in hand relates to whether the defendants were negligent in observing the handicapped students while attending the woodworking class. The plaintiff could argue that their actions were tantamount to negligence because the environment was potentially dangerous for the handicapped student, yet the teachers who were observing him did not, reasonably, make efforts to prevent him from being injured. Furthermore, the key question issue that is highly debatable here is whether the school district owed Greider a duty of care considering the prevailing circumstances. In the summary judgement, the school district sought immunity from the liability under three sources including the nonexistence of an attractive nuisance, Kansas Tort Claims Act, and the statute of response.3 Even so, the defendants had a tasking moment arguing their case because the court argued that they were under legal duty to do everything that is reasonable to protect Greider from harm. At least, the defendants would have made some efforts to provide Greider with proper instructions regarding the safety procedures as well as cautioning him regarding the safety of the table saw. In this sense, the defendants’ claim that such issues are discretionary and hence they are entitled to immunity is not binding. Therefore, the defendants would only enjoy immunity if they could have successfully proved that they did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, or if their actions were drew some direction from a readily verifiable standard. The ruling The court ruled that the defendants were reliable since they were under a legal duty to offer Greider protection from harm while in the woodworking class, including taking any reasonable actions to safeguard his safety. The court added that, at-least; Greider ought to have been offered proper instructions, while safety procedures ought to have been put on the table saw. The court rules that those are not discretionary issues and, therefore, the defendants could not enjoy immunity under KTCA. As a matter of fact, the defendants were denied motion for summary judgement. Further, the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgement is accepted while the defendants’ motion in limine is declined. The impact While immunity is granted on discretionary acts under the Tor Claims Act, this case set a precedent upon which became clearer the circumstances under which the court can classify actions as discretionary. From the ruling of the court, it became clear that abuse of the discretion or the extent of the discretion involved does not influence the decision of the court towards granting immunity. Specifically, this case revealed that granting of discretionary function exception is only applicable in absence of mandatory guidelines or duty. In view of this, the court helps the defendants responsible since they were under the legal duty to take charge of the plaintiff while in the woodworking class, and on these ground the discretionary function immunity was denied. This specifics of this case also showed that the moving party can be granted a summary judgement only when there is a proof that expresses absence of genuine issue of material facts.4 In this case, the subject of the fact is “material” only when the outcome of the case is affected by the dispute over facts. This case, also, offered a good precedent in the case of Dougan v. Rossville Drainage Dist,5 where the Kansas Supreme Court examined the discretionary function exception on Behalf of the KTCA. In that case, the Supreme Court expressed that, while immunity is the exception, liability is the rule, under the KTCA. Although the statute or the case law does not offer any feasible definition of “discretionary”, some guidance has been provided in this case following the court’s discussion of cases associated with discretionary exception, in relation to a line of Kanasa cases. Supporting and Precedence Case Law In the case of In Lanning, 22 Kan.App.,6 the complainant was hit by a discuss thrown by a member. The jury found the field coach and the track liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. However, the defendant challenged filed a motion for judgement despite the ruling. They also filed for a motion for reconsideration, and a motion for new trial, all of which were denied by the trial court, according to the defendant. Read More