Leonard L. Williams Justice Center
WILMINGTON, Del. – A Delaware school district must defend a lawsuit over a student’s broken pinky finger, finding it is possible that lack of supervision of a door could constitute gross negligence.
It’s a “close call,” but Superior Court judge Sean Lugg on Aug. 17 refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Rickkia Scott against the Caesar Rodney School District and the Delaware Department of Education. The case involves her 7-year-old son S.H., whose pinky was fractured when another student slammed a door.
Arguments for immunity under the State Tort Claims Act failed, Lugg wrote, when it comes to whether staff committed gross negligence. Small children need to be watched around dangerous situations like a doorway, the lawsuit alleged.
“(A)ccepting all reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to Scott, the complaint may be read to allege the complete absence of supervision of young children in an area fraught with danger and, thus, an ‘I don’t care attitude,’” Lugg wrote.
State officials can’t be sued for discretionary acts or acts undertaken in good faith. However, they can be sued when those acts are the result of gross or wanton negligence.
The lawsuit alleged that was the case for S.H., who also suffered an injury to a fingernail requiring stitches. Among the claims are that staff failed to properly supervise children, failed to keep their school free from dangerous hazards and failed to exercise reasonable care.
The lawsuit also alleges incompetent and improperly trained staff that did not save children from a dangerous door used to reenter the David E. Robinson Elementary School building after recess
“(S)mall children must be supervised around conditions that could pose a hazard to themselves or other children, such as when using a door that can be closed rapidly and with great force,” the complaint says.
Though Lugg refused to dismiss the case, as this early in litigation allegations made in the complaint must be taken as true, “the facts developed in discovery may support a different conclusion.”
