Gaincott v. Davis

20 Citing cases

  1. Doe v. Aena Pub. Sch. Dist.

    SC 165441 (Mich. Jul. 29, 2024)

    We have recognized that "[a]t least in a limited sense the relation of a teacher to a pupil is that of one in loco parentis." Gaincott v Davis, 281 Mich. 515, 518; 275 N.W. 229 (1937). Indeed, this common-law doctrine arose in the educational context.

  2. T.M. v. Detroit Pub. Sch.

    Case Number 15-14406 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 26, 2016)

    For instance, it is well established under Michigan law that "a teacher owes a duty to exercise reasonable care over students in his or her charge." Cook v. Bennett, 94 Mich. App. 93, 98, 288 N.W.2d 609, 611 (1979) (citing Gaincott v. Davis, 281 Mich. 515, 518, 275 N.W. 229, 231 (1937) ("At least in a limited sense the relation of a teacher to a pupil is that of one in loco parentis.)). "However, this duty is coterminous with the teacher's presence at school." Ibid. "Supervision implies oversight," and, "[i]n order to oversee student activity, a teacher must be present to observe and control.

  3. Baird v. Hosmer

    46 Ohio St. 2d 273 (Ohio 1976)   Cited 8 times

    " Likewise, in Gaincott v. Davis (1937), 281 Mich. 515, 518, 275 N.W. 229, 231: "At least in a limited sense the relation of a teacher to a pupil is that of one in loco parentis.

  4. Doe v. Alpena Pub. Sch. Dist.

    No. 359190 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2022)

    A basic principle of Michigan jurisprudence is that schools exercise some amount of control over students via their responsibility in loco parentis. See Gaincott v Davis, 281 Mich. 515, 518; 275 N.W. 229 (1937) ("At least in a limited sense the relation of a teacher to a pupil is that of one in loco parentis."). "The term in loco parentis generally has been understood as referring to a temporary assumption of the duties, character, or function of a lawful parent."

  5. Boman v. Catholic Diocese of Grand Rapids

    No. 338458 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 26, 2018)

    Thus, if no duty exists, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This Court and the Michigan Supreme Court have held that a teacher stands in loco parentis to his or her students, Gaincott v Davis, 281 Mich 515, 518; 275 NW 229 (1937); Cook v Bennett, 94 Mich App 93, 98; 288 NW2d 609 (1979) (reasoning that "[a] teacher owes a duty to exercise reasonable care over students in his or her charge"), thus creating a special relationship between teacher and student. But plaintiff has failed to cite any published authority extending the duty to act in loco parentis to an institution like the Diocese, administrators like Maj and Deja, or coaches like Shelton.

  6. Smith ex rel. A.S. v. Bronson Lifestyle Improvement & Research Ctr. Co.

    No. 321813 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2015)

    Generally, the law will not impose a duty on one party to protect another unless there is a special relationship between them, Bailey v Schaaf, 494 Mich 595, 604; 835 NW2d 413 (2013), or some other special circumstance exists, Krass v Tri-County Security, Inc, 233 Mich App 661, 668; 593 NW2d 578 (1999), and the protected party is readily identifiable as foreseeably endangered, Bailey, 494 Mich at 614; Marcelletti v Bathani, 198 Mich App 655, 665; 500 NW2d 124 (1993). In this case, the trial court and the parties analyze plaintiff's claims on the basis that a special relationship existed between defendants and A.S. that was similar to that between teacher and student, Gaincott v Davis, 281 Mich 515, 518; 275 NW 229 (1937) ("the relation of a teacher to a pupil is that of one in loco parentis") or that between babysitter and child, Babula, 212 Mich App at 49. "A teacher owes a duty to exercise reasonable care over students in his or her charge."

  7. Johnson v. Clark

    165 Mich. App. 366 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 6 times
    In Johnson v. Clark, 165 Mich. App. 366, 367; 418 N.W.2d 466 (1987), the plaintiff, who had dyslexia and, as a high school graduate, could only read at the fourth-grade level, sued his teachers and the school psychologist, principal, and administrator, alleging that the "defendants' failure to properly perform annual tests and evaluations required by... statute and regulations promulgated thereunder resulted in plaintiff's failure to learn that he suffered from dyslexia."

    Although Michigan law recognizes a teacher's liability for a student's injuries proximately caused by the teacher, this liability is based on a person's common-law duty to refrain from negligently injuring others, and deals with personal injury, not teacher malpractice. Lovitt vConcord School Dist, 58 Mich. App. 593; 228 N.W.2d 479 (1975); Gaincott v Davis, 281 Mich. 515; 275 N.W. 229 (1937). Plaintiff recognizes that an action in negligence requires the existence of a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff.

  8. Cook v. Bennett

    94 Mich. App. 93 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 42 times
    Reasoning that " teacher owes a duty to exercise reasonable care over students in his or her charge"

    A teacher owes a duty to exercise reasonable care over students in his or her charge. See Gaincott v Davis, 281 Mich. 515; 275 N.W. 229 (1937), Lovitt v Concord School Dist, 58 Mich. App. 593; 228 N.W.2d 479 (1975), Hoose v Drumm, 281 N.Y. 54; 22 N.E.2d 233 (1939). However, this duty is coterminous with the teacher's presence at school.

  9. Lovitt v. Concord School Dist

    58 Mich. App. 593 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 20 times
    In Lovitt v Concord School Dist, 58 Mich. App. 593; 228 N.W.2d 479 (1975), plaintiff's decedent died of heat prostration during a particularly severe football practice session.

    Under the common law, a teacher could be found liable for a student's injuries proximately caused by the teacher's negligence. Gaincott vDavis, 281 Mich. 515; 275 N.W. 229 (1937). Defendants maintain that this principle is superseded by statute, MCLA 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107) which, as discussed previously, has been held to apply to school districts.

  10. C.R. v. Novi Cmty. Sch. Dist.

    Case No. 14-14531 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 9, 2017)   Cited 5 times

    Defendants Solomon and EDUStaff concede, as a general matter, that Defendant Solomon, as Joe R.'s teacher, owed him a duty of reasonable care, which means the level of care that a reasonably careful person would use under the circumstances. Thompson v. Rochester Cmty. Sch., 2006 WL 3040137, at *10 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2006) (citing Gaincott v. Davis, 281 Mich. 515, 519 (1937); Cook v. Bennett, 94 Mich. App. 93, 98 (1980)). Defendants point out, however, that in Michigan, "there is no duty to protect against the criminal acts of a third person," as criminal acts are inherently unforeseeable.