A bit of a vent- unexpected expense. Update

[supersnoop]

I am sure the other parent would be notified. But, by virtue of the OP indicating that the other child has disabilities, the other parent would not be liable in the same sense that the District IS liable.

The other parent also depends on the District and the District's employees to transport their child who has special needs that may be far beyond what the OP characterizes as 'spec ed'.

The subject of intent is probably not an issue here.

Both children probably fall under ADA and 504. That is why the taxpayers are going to pay. they are going to pay because the para the taxpayers are already paying didn't do the job.

There are an awful lot of armchair lawyers here. For the district to be liable, don't you have to prove negligence absent intent? Do the employee's duties include protecting personal property? It seems pretty clear that it's the kid (and his parents) who need to pay to replace the glasses.

 

[Gracie09]

I hardly equate a surgeon to a fire fighter. Every job has responsibilities and ALL humans have good and bad days. I take it you have never had a bad day or ever made an error?

So is a surgeon or fire fighter allowed personal time when they should be performing the essential duties their job entails? I never said I never made a mistake but I've owned up to it and mitigated the damage, even if it meant spending money.

 

[Gracie09]

There are an awful lot of armchair lawyers here. For the district to be liable, don't you have to prove negligence absent intent? Do the employee's duties include protecting personal property? It seems pretty clear that it's the kid (and his parents) who need to pay to replace the glasses.

Glasses aren't like an iPad or phone. They are attached to a child kind of like an extension of their person. And since this child already had an incident with other children on this bus and a plan was put in place to protect the op's dd from further assault and that plan was not adhered to by the employee of the school district, the school district can be liable for damages.

 

[mrsklamc]

I hardly equate a surgeon to a fire fighter. Every job has responsibilities and ALL humans have good and bad days. I take it you have never had a bad day or ever made an error?

No one's saying that. But if you make an error in the course of your job, your employer may well be liable for it.

 

[undertheradar]

Glasses aren't like an iPad or phone. They are attached to a child kind of like an extension of their person. And since this child already had an incident with other children on this bus and a plan was put in place to protect the op's dd from further assault and that plan was not adhered to by the employee of the school district, the school district can be liable for damages.

What next, does the child in question receive individual transportation? As for liability, why wouldn't intent to harm or cause damage be a requirement? It is an accident and they happen every day.

 

[undertheradar]

So is a surgeon or fire fighter allowed personal time when they should be performing the essential duties their job entails? I never said I never made a mistake but I've owned up to it and mitigated the damage, even if it meant spending money.

What exactly is this personal time you speak of? Is it possible that the para was watching traffic around the bus when this took place? We don't know but some of you sure have convicted this person.

 

[delmar411]

What exactly is this personal time you speak of? Is it possible that the para was watching traffic around the bus when this took place? We don't know but some of you sure have convicted this person.

The Para's only job is to physically protect the OP's daughter. She is to do nothing else but protect her DD and make sure no one touches her. That's it. How are you not understanding this? She is not allowed to do anything else. There is no personal time or moments or daydreams or looking out the window. Seriously not that complicated to understand. She is basically a bodyguard on the bus for only one person in the whole world, the OP's DD. It is a job and when she is on the clock she needs to be doing her job. Someone else's physical safety depends on her.

OP, I wouldn't let this rest. I'm so sorry this happened to your daughter.

 

[Gracie09]

What exactly is this personal time you speak of? Is it possible that the para was watching traffic around the bus when this took place? We don't know but some of you sure have convicted this person.

You're the one who said the aid was allowed a personal moment to look out the window when she was suppose to be performing her essential job function. Back on page three. The aides job was to care for that child. That is her sole job function. Not check traffic, not have personal moments. Care for the child in her charge. Period.

 

[daughtersrus]

What next, does the child in question receive individual transportation? .

They could if their IEP required it. You may not know this but many districts, including the one I live in, send cars from a limo company to pick up students that are homeless but choose to attend school in our district. Just like laws regarding IEP students include transportation, so does the law that applies to homeless students.

As for liability, why wouldn't intent to harm or cause damage be a requirement? It is an accident and they happen every day.

You still haven't answered. Are you saying that the 1:1 caused the accident by not paying attention to what was going on but it wasn't her intent for DD to be assaulted?

What exactly is this personal time you speak of? Is it possible that the para was watching traffic around the bus when this took place? We don't know but some of you sure have convicted this person.

I only know what I've been told. I was told by the administrator in our transportation dept that the bus was stopped at the school. Students were getting off. DD's 1:1 was "hovering" over DD but then turned away to look out the window. Our buses all have on-board video cameras. They pick up what is going on in the bus as well as what is going on immediately surrounding the bus. I have asked to watch the video but they will not allow me because doing so would infringe on the privacy rights of the other students.

 

[Gracie09]

What next, does the child in question receive individual transportation? As for liability, why wouldn't intent to harm or cause damage be a requirement? It is an accident and they happen every day.

If that is what it takes for the school district to ensure her safety, yes. Again, check the definition of accident. Either way if the school district employee was performing her job correctly it wouldn't have happened. There is a reason an iep is in place. There is a reason these are legally binding documents. First the child was hit. Now her glasses (necessary for her to see so she can learn) were broken. What's next?

 

[manning]

I hardly equate a surgeon to a fire fighter. Every job has responsibilities and ALL humans have good and bad days. I take it you have never had a bad day or ever made an error?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

[LadyBeBop]

They could if their IEP required it. You may not know this but many districts, including the one I live in, send cars from a limo company to pick up students that are homeless but choose to attend school in our district. Just like laws regarding IEP students include transportation, so does the law that applies to homeless students.

Quite understandable that your district would have to supply transportation to homeless students that reside in the district. But it sounds as if your district must supply transportation to homeless students who live out of the district. That does not seem right. In most places, you have to pay tuition if you attend school out of district.

Now, excuse me while I put on my flame-proof suit.

Here's how I'm looking at this. There are three parties and their respective agents. One of these parties will have to pay for the glasses.

1) OP's DD. The broken glasses were hers. Without the proper glasses, she cannot see or learn. I will assume that she took the necessary precautions to ensure her glasses would not break in case of an accident. Her agent is her parents, who receive their funding through their occupations..

2) The student who broke the glasses. Without knowing more about the child, I will refrain from giving him full blame. Although, he would have to be fairly high functioning in order for him to be going to school. His agent is his parents. I'm assuming they receive their funding through their occupations.

3) DD's 1 on 1. Her sole purpose is to ensure DD's safety on the bus (and that also includes the personal belongings). Unfortunately, in this instance, she failed. Her agent is the school district, who receive their funding through their taxpayers. And many taxpayers complain about being overtaxed to begin with. They don't want to spring the bill for somebody's glasses.

IMHO, it's the school district's responsibility, being the agent of the 1 on 1 who neglected her duty. Fortunately, the school district has insurance. Hopefully, the insurance will pay for the glasses, and the district's premiums won't go up.

 

[Judique]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

They can't help it. They are just drawn to the flame....

 

[undertheradar]

They could if their IEP required it. You may not know this but many districts, including the one I live in, send cars from a limo company to pick up students that are homeless but choose to attend school in our district. Just like laws regarding IEP students include transportation, so does the law that applies to homeless students.



You still haven't answered. Are you saying that the 1:1 caused the accident by not paying attention to what was going on but it wasn't her intent for DD to be assaulted?



I only know what I've been told. I was told by the administrator in our transportation dept that the bus was stopped at the school. Students were getting off. DD's 1:1 was "hovering" over DD but then turned away to look out the window. Our buses all have on-board video cameras. They pick up what is going on in the bus as well as what is going on immediately surrounding the bus. I have asked to watch the video but they will not allow me because doing so would infringe on the privacy rights of the other students.

To answer your question: no. When did this get labeled assault?

 

[undertheradar]

You're the one who said the aid was allowed a personal moment to look out the window when she was suppose to be performing her essential job function. Back on page three. The aides job was to care for that child. That is her sole job function. Not check traffic, not have personal moments. Care for the child in her charge. Period.

In post 1 the OP stated outside. Later down the page it became out the window.

No matter what, it does not matter. If people believe that the 1:1 should pay, that will be what they believe. I see it as an accident and accidents happen every day. I refuse to hold someone who probably makes minimum wage be held responsible for this. I also don't believe that the taxpayers should foot the bill.

 

[undertheradar]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Laugh, it makes life easier to take.

 

[NotUrsula]

I didn't read the entire thread, but I wanted to mention that if you paid up-front for the glasses with a credit card, you should be able to get replacement cost from their Loss/Damage coverage.

My eldest has Asperger's, and he had the same sort of stunt pulled on him on the playground in fourth grade, by a child who was comepletely neuro-typical. It happens if administrators let it happen.

I'd also ask the para's employer for replacement of the glasses, and as a PP suggested, try to have your daughter boarded via the rear door and seated in back in future; kids won't be able to physically harass her if they are not given the opportunity to walk near her.

 

[Gracie09]

Quite understandable that your district would have to supply transportation to homeless students that reside in the district. But it sounds as if your district must supply transportation to homeless students who live out of the district. That does not seem right. In most places, you have to pay tuition if you attend school out of district. Now, excuse me while I put on my flame-proof suit. Here's how I'm looking at this. There are three parties and their respective agents. One of these parties will have to pay for the glasses. 1) OP's DD. The broken glasses were hers. Without the proper glasses, she cannot see or learn. I will assume that she took the necessary precautions to ensure her glasses would not break in case of an accident. Her agent is her parents, who receive their funding through their occupations.. 2) The student who broke the glasses. Without knowing more about the child, I will refrain from giving him full blame. Although, he would have to be fairly high functioning in order for him to be going to school. His agent is his parents. I'm assuming they receive their funding through their occupations. 3) DD's 1 on 1. Her sole purpose is to ensure DD's safety on the bus (and that also includes the personal belongings). Unfortunately, in this instance, she failed. Her agent is the school district, who receive their funding through their taxpayers. And many taxpayers complain about being overtaxed to begin with. They don't want to spring the bill for somebody's glasses. IMHO, it's the school district's responsibility, being the agent of the 1 on 1 who neglected her duty. Fortunately, the school district has insurance. Hopefully, the insurance will pay for the glasses, and the district's premiums won't go up.

Federal law allow homeless children to attend school at the last district they were enrolled in prior to becoming homeless or if their housing is moved. Districts are required to provide transportation for these children. Too many homeless kids were moving too quickly through no fault of them or their family and they were not able to actually get an education.

 

[Judique]

2) The student who broke the glasses. Without knowing more about the child, I will refrain from giving him full blame. Although, he would have to be fairly high functioning in order for him to be going to school. His agent is his parents. I'm assuming they receive their funding through their occupations.

You were pretty on point about how you evaluated most of this.

However, a person does not have to be fairly high functioning to go to school.

To put it as simply as I can every child has the right to go to school. Children with physical, emotional and mental disabilities have the right to school from age 3 to age 21. Some may go in wheelchairs with feeding tubes, nurses in attendance, oxygen bottles.

 

[LadyBeBop]

No matter what, it does not matter. If people believe that the 1:1 should pay, that will be what they believe. I see it as an accident and accidents happen every day. I refuse to hold someone who probably makes minimum wage be held responsible for this.

I don't think anyone is saying the 1:1 should pay for it. If I thought that I would be held liable for something done in the workplace, I'd either buy additional insurance, or make sure my homeowners/auto insurance covers it.

I also don't believe that the taxpayers should foot the bill.

I understand your concern, but we have to agree to disagree on that. At least, that's why the school district bought insurance.

Federal law allow homeless children to attend school at the last district they were enrolled in prior to becoming homeless or if their housing is moved. Districts are required to provide transportation for these children. Too many homeless kids were moving too quickly through no fault of them or their family and they were not able to actually get an education.

Fair enough. Learn something new every day.

You were pretty on point about how you evaluated most of this.

However, a person does not have to be fairly high functioning to go to school.

To put it as simply as I can every child has the right to go to school. Children with physical, emotional and mental disabilities have the right to school from age 3 to age 21. Some may go in wheelchairs with feeding tubes, nurses in attendance, oxygen bottles.

Which is why I did not want to put blame on him without knowing him. We don't even know if he knows the difference between right and wrong. However, I wonder what kind of learning environment someone like him would be put into.

But that goes well beyond the scope of this discussion.

Thanks for the replies, y'all. I am learning something.