JODICE PIERRE LOUIS AND MICHEL JOSEPH, APPELLANTS,
v.
SHENIKA SKIPPER, SANDRA PETERSON, INDIVIDUALLY, BROWARD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD AND STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Students driving personal vehicles during a school-authorized field trip were involved in an accident. The court affirmed summary judgment for the school board, holding that the board cannot be liable for negligence by a student driver merely because students were required to follow conduct rules during the trip.
A school board cannot be held liable for a student's negligent driving of a privately owned vehicle during a school field trip merely because the school required students to follow conduct rules. The student driver was neither an employee of the school board nor operating a school vehicle, and the school board had no control over the actual driving.
[1] A school board is not liable for injuries caused by a student driver during a school-related activity when the student is using a privately owned vehicle and is not an em…
[2] A school board's liability for a student's negligent driving during a school activity hinges on whether the school board's own negligence was a legal cause of the acciden…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“In order to participate in the field trip, the students' parents had to consent to their children driving or riding in another vehicle. The students were required to follow all of the same conduct rules that would apply when they were in class.”
Establishes the limited nature of the school board's control—it was behavioral only, not control over the vehicles or driving.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants were injured when struck by a vehicle driven by a high school student during a school-authorized field trip where students drove their own …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Independent Contractor cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant plaintiffs were injured when they were struck by a privately owned automobile driven by a high school student during a school field trip. We affirm a summary judgment holding that the school board is not liable.
The field trip consisted of students driving their own vehicles or riding with others to a store to purchase uniforms to wear to work in hospitals, a requirement of a health occupations class. One of the students was alleged to have negligently driven her mother’s vehicle, resulting in injuries to the plaintiffs, who were not involved with the field trip.
In order to participate in the field trip, the students’ parents had to consent to their children driving or riding in another vehicle. The students were required to follow all of the same conduct rules that would apply when they were in class. The sole theory on which plaintiffs rely for holding the school board liable is that, because the students were under control of the school so far as their behavior was concerned, the student causing the accident was an agent of the school board.
In Booker v. Okaloosa Board of Public Instruction, 328 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), a teacher authorized several students to use a truck to pick up some lumber to use for a float in the homecoming parade. One of the students obtained his father’s truck and another student, who was riding behind the cab in the bed was injured when the driver made a sudden turn. The court held that the school board could be liable only if plaintiff could establish negligence by the teacher, which was a legal cause of the accident. We agree with the reasoning of Booker. Inasmuch as the student in this case was neither an employee of the school board, nor driving a school board vehicle, we do not see how the school board could be liable. If the school board had chartered a bus or van to transport these students, the school board would not be liable for the negligence of the driver, because the driver would be an independent contractor. Dixon v. Whitfield, 654 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The school board in this case had no more control over the driving than did the school board in Dixon. We therefore affirm.
SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kazanjian v. Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty., 967 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ntiffs other point on appeal concerning the School Board’s Renewed Motion for Protective Order, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s granting such motion. Affirmed. WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur. . We note that in Louis v. Skipper, 851 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), this court confronted a claim by a third party injured by an automobile driven by a student on a school sanctioned field trip. The injured party sued the school board, arguing that the student was an agent of the board at the ti…
Authorities Cited
- Dixon v. Whitfield, 654 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)