Mini Court Scenarios
In the first case, Van’s parents versus the teacher Alison Watson, I would rule in favor of Alison Watson. Van, together with other students, was warned to stay away from the stump to avoid getting hurt. Van was even warned an extra two times to stay away from the stump as it was dangerous. In my view, Van was looking for trouble and just being mischievous and was not following instructions. The case is seen as contributory negligence as Van did not take the necessary precautions given to him.
In Randy Esco’s parents versus the school case, my ruling will be in favor of Randy Esco and his parents. It is not a case of contributory negligence as the defendant states as it was the duty of the school and the teacher to inform the plaintiff of the ditch and even to attempt to fill it to avoid any accidents for the students. The school and the teachers are therefore responsible for the accident and should cater for the medical expenses.
The case between Tommy’s father versus the school and the school district it would be fair to rule in favor of the plaintiff Tommy and his dad. The driver of the school bus was supposed to take the necessary precautions, whether there were cars or not. The driver is required to indicate when stopping or making turns which he did not see the need to use his flashing and stop signals as the highway was clear. If the driver had used the signals, especially when leaving the dropping spot, the other car driver would have been aware and slowed down.
In the case between Standfield’s parents against the Foster Barton Board of Education, I would rule in favor of the defendant. Standfield states clearly in his statement that he was aware that the glass was there, and like the other students, he was required to slow down. Standfield was just negligent and did not follow the orders set.