Negligence is a failure to carry out an ethical exercise expected in specified circumstances. The area of negligence regarding tort law involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of ignorance. It can be made possible by extenuating events; therefore, it is for the person who suffers the loss caused by another’s negligence to take full legal right to compensate for the harm. The core intention of negligence remains that individuals should be entirely answerable for their actions or mistakes. It is by taking complete charge of the damage they might have caused to both individuals and their properties.
There is a diverse range of discussions regarding damages caused by negligence (Stoyanova, 2020). Damage places the use of resources aimed at restoration or compensation of the incurred losses. In this case, breaching is preferred by the extent of culpability; in most cases, it is irrelevant as compensation is the final requirement once the breach of duty is realized (Grady, 2019). First and foremost, the central area of concentration should be whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for a tort. Different questions come on board if reasonably, under the normal circumstances the accused did to incur the loss. It is usually a sensitive question that needs a highly knowledgeable judge based on limited facts. It is important to decide with utmost justice whether the plaintiff genuinely needs compensation for the negligence tort.
It is right to state that any damage is recoverable, whether bulky or minor; hence the damage to a plaintiff can be in terms of physical or mental loss (Ohrnberger et al., 2017). The most common penalty should only be limited to putting the plaintiff in the exact position before. Recovery thus becomes the greatest challenge of damage caused by negligence; hence the full payment should not be made periodically (Hågensen et al., 2019). Therefore, this is another factor of impairment experienced by the compensator.
Suppose summarized further damages caused by negligence can only be a negative result to the person who has caused the action. The law establishes different defenses against failure, especially in court (Fowler, 2019). These types of defensive elements are, for example, contributory. For instance, in the case of an accident involving two people, it might result from the driver’s recklessness, or the cause might be someone who has suffered the injury. It is, in most cases, a defensive element termed as a contributory defense. In short, in case of contributory difference, every individual should responsibly ensure adequate care towards him or herself.
Another type of defensive negligence is also called comparative negligence, which is used widely by most states. The first advanced technology has made many nations abandon the traditional strict rule of contributory negligence and stick to a comparative form. It releases the plaintiff from a heavy penalty since the accuser has played a slight role in the negligence (Gifford, 2018). Comparative negligence is another type of defensive action due to equal justice towards both the plaintiff and the defendant is considered the most appropriate. It is the assumption of risk, where the plaintiff assumes the risk of loss they involved himself in deliberately. In this case, the defendant may be excused or proved innocent by the power of law.
The doctrine of in loco parentis ensures a legal take by persons or organizations towards the full responsibility of parenting. Therefore, the discussion involves the school, parents, and teachers and how they respond to law cases in times of legal rights. Parents and teachers use judgment to make critical decisions for their children (Boland et al., 2018). When they meet the same standards, especially parents, of highly qualified personnel such as teachers and those dealing with the law, they stand a high chance of being qualified as in loco parentis. When parents restrict their children from malpractice and misbehavior, be it through legal rights, then rights, they meet the prudent class of caring parenting.
The in loco parentis applies up to the secondary school level. The parents are obliged to surrender full responsibility to teachers who care for their children in their absentia. The court also ruled of an adequate penalty of punishment that should be subjected to high school pupils though not extreme. It is because pupils’ right is not automatically coextensive with the privileges of old or mature people in some setting. In loco, parenting continues to K-12 school, where any misbehavior carried out in schools is treated with immediate rectification (Valdebenito et al., 2018). Minor children are always entrusted to school by parents, and in this case, the school takes full responsibility and authority upon any quire behavior. In normal circumstances, young pupils, when punished with less physical pain, are considered necessary. The law also permits the handling of young children with the most excellent care they deserve.
In conclusion, therefore, negligence, the frequent tort in education, should be handled with the high level of sensitivity that it deserves. The damages and defensiveness are remedies aimed at protecting the affected individual’s rights. As seen in the role of in loco parentis, parents should lawfully care for their children to avoid negligence and minimize losses that they may incur. The losses result from placing more resources to restore or compensate for the damages caused by negligence. Therefore, both secondary and Kindergarten schools, abbreviated as the K-12 schools, should all practice the in loco parentis concerning tort cases. The above mentioned are the only possible means of restricting negligence in education to avoid possible negative consequences like losses that the affected parties face.
References
Boland, L., Kryworuchko, J., Saarimaki, A., & Lawson, M. L. (2017). Parental decision making involvement and decisional conflict: A descriptive study.BMC Pediatrics, 17(1).
Gifford, D. G. (2018). Technological triggers to tort revolutions: Steam locomotives, autonomous vehicles, and accident compensation. De Gruyter.
Hågensen, G., Nilsen, G., Mehus, G., & Henriksen, N. (2019). The struggle against perceived negligence. A qualitative study of PATIENTS’ experiences of adverse events in Norwegian hospitals. BMC Health Services Research.
Ohrnberger, J., Fichera, E., & Sutton, M. (2017). The relationship between mental and physical health: A mediation analysis. Social Science & Medicine.
Fowler, M. (2019). Negligence in schools: Educating educators about their liability. SSRN.
Stoyanova, V. (2020). The common rule tort of negligence as a tool for deconstructing positive obligations under the European Convention on human rights. The International Journal of Human Rights, 24(5), 632-655.
Valdebenito, S., Eisner, M., Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., & Sutherland, A. (2018). School‐based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: A systematic review. Wiley Online Library.