PHILADELPHIA – A Chester County school district contends that a plaintiff claiming it did not warn her about working with a student who had shown violent behavior prior to being attacked and injured by that same student, has not proven her case.
Hieshia Legrande of Phoenixville first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 7 versus Downingtown Area School District and Downingtown Area School Authority of Downingtown, plus Lionville Middle School, of Exton.
“Plaintiff was sent to defendant Lionville Middle School and subsequently assigned to help a 7th Grade student at the defendant school. Defendants knew or should have known of the student’s dangerous propensities, behavioral issues and violent tendencies. Despite this knowledge, defendants failed to warn or alert plaintiff of same,” the suit said.
“The student had a long history of being violent toward students, teachers, aides and others in the school, including tripping and causing injury to individuals within the school on many occasions. On or about Nov. 20, 2019, shortly after being assigned to the student, plaintiff was severely injured when the student tripped plaintiff, causing her to fall the ground. Defendants knew or should have known that the student would attempt to and would injure plaintiff based on numerous similar occurrences with others.”
Legrande maintained she was never warned about the student’s violence towards others, yet was told afterward by those working for defendants that the student was “very violent and often would trip and attack teachers and other aides” – and despite this, the defendants allegedly failed to act on such knowledge to prevent injury to plaintiff or anyone else prior to this incident.
As a result of the fall, Legrande said she suffered injuries to her right knee, left side, left shoulder, left shoulder tear, left wrist with carpal tunnel, left ulnar neuropathy and wrist derangement, low back with disc injuries and radiating pain with radicular symptoms.
“Defendants’ policies and procedures failed to require, but should have required, disclosure of the student’s behavioral and violent past to plaintiff who was directly assigned to him when it was or should have been known to defendants that the exact type of incident that occurred, had occurred previously,” per the suit.
“As a direct and proximate cause of the deliberate and/or reckless indifference of defendants, plaintiff suffered severe physical pain and suffering, humiliation, mental anguish, fear, physical injuries, economic loss, scarring and disfigurement.”
UPDATE
The defendants filed an answer to the suit on April 5, charging that Legrande did not demonstrate liability to them for her unspecified civil rights claims, under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and what most closely resembled a state-created danger theory.
“In order to assert a cause of action under Section 1983, a plaintiff must prove first, a violation of a right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and second, that the violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law,” the answer read.
“The first element of a state created danger claim is that the harm that was ultimately caused was a foreseeable and direct result of the state’s actions. In this case, plaintiff contends that being tripped by this particular student was ‘foreseeable’ because this student had ‘violent tendencies’ about which she was not warned. Essentially, plaintiff contends that because this particular student had acted out in the past in unspecified circumstances, it was foreseeable that this student would trip her and cause her to fall.”
According to the defendants, the plaintiff’s allegations that it was “foreseeable that this student would trip plaintiff and cause her to fall are nothing more that conclusory statements, that at most, support a claim for negligence,” but aren’t an example of her constitutional rights being violated.
Nor are they an example of a state-created danger or supported enough to meet the threshold necessary to show a violation of her constitutional rights, per the answer.
“Plaintiff’s complaint as a whole supports, at most, a negligent failure to warn the plaintiff prior to her being tripped by the minor student. A ‘failure to warn’ theory is not sufficient to form a basis for a claim of constitutional violations,” the answer stated.
For counts of civil rights claims in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiff is seeking, jointly and severally, compensatory damages in excess of $50,000, costs, attorneys’ fees and any other relief, including declaratory relief, that the acts of defendants were unconstitutional, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Thomas F. Sacchetta of Sacchetta & Baldino, in Media.
The defendants are represented by Joseph P. Connor III and Julia Jacobelli of Connor Weber & Oberlies, in Paoli.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-00078
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com