Quantcast

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Tuesday, June 18, 2024

Pittsburgh school officials object to lawsuit alleging liability for bus injuries suffered by autistic student

Schools
Jaimendoherty

Doherty | GRB Law

PITTSBURGH – Pittsburgh school officials have brought preliminary objections in a suit filed by a parent, who alleged that her non-verbal and autistic daughter sustained a concussion and other injuries when she fell from her seat, and argues that the school district and a bus company were responsible for the incident.

Deshjua Rhodes of Pittsburgh first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on April 26 versus the School District of Pittsburgh and First Student Bus Line of Cincinnati, Ohio.

“Plaintiff Deshjua Rhodes (Ms. Rhodes), is the mother of Jane Doe (Doe). Doe is 6 years old, has been diagnosed with autism, and is non-verbal. Doe attends Pittsburgh Conroy Education Center, a school in the School District of Pittsburgh. Doe is transported to and from Pittsburgh Conroy Education Center using First Student Bus Line. Both defendants, School District of Pittsburgh and First Student Bus Line, are responsible for the safety and well-being of students while the students are being transported to and from a school within the School District of Pittsburgh on a bus under contract by First Student Bus Line,” the suit said.

“Defendant School District of Pittsburgh owes a duty of care to all students under their supervision, from the time they leave their house to attend school until the time they return home from school. Defendant First Student Bus Line, owes a duty of care to all students under their supervision from the time they leave their house until they arrive at school, and then again when they are picked up from school until they are returned to their home at the conclusion of the school day. Ms. Rhodes received specific assurances from faculty at Pittsburgh Conroy that any time Jane Doe was on the bus, she would be provided with an aid to ensure her safety on the bus and received specific assurances that Jane Doe would be buckled into her seat using a harness or other device. On Sept. 29, 2023, Doe was on a First Student Bus returning from school at Pittsburgh Conroy.”

The suit added there was “no aid on the bus on the day in question to ensure the Doe’s safety while on the bus, despite the assurances given to Ms. Rhodes that an aid would be present at all times.”

“Doe was not buckled into her seat appropriately. During the course of the bus ride home, Doe fell from her seat and sustained abrasions and contusions on her head, as well as a concussion. This concussion has had a long-lasting impact on Doe’s quality of life,” the suit stated.

“Ms. Rhodes only permitted Doe to ride the bus to and from school because she received specific assurances from faculty at Pittsburgh Conroy that Doe would be accompanied by an aid to ensure her safety while riding on the bus, and Ms. Rhodes would not have permitted Doe to ride on the bus but-for those specific assurances. The injuries Doe sustained would not have occurred but-for the failure of the School District of Pittsburgh and First Student Bus Line to ensure there was an aid on the bus and Doe was properly secured in her seat. The failure of the School District of Pittsburgh and First Student Bus Line to provide an Aid on the bus, and their failure to ensure Doe was properly buckled into her seat were the proximate causes of Doe’s injuries.”

UPDATE

The Board of Public Education of the School District of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (improperly identified as “School District of Pittsburgh”) filed preliminary objections in the case on June 3, on the grounds of local government immunity and improper service.

“The District is a Public School District within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and a political subdivision of the Commonwealth. As a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, the District is generally immune from suit pursuant to the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. The Tort Claims Act provides for nine exceptions to local governmental immunity: (1) Vehicle liability; (2) Care, custody or control of personal property; (3) Real property; (4) Trees, traffic controls and street lighting; (5) Utility service facilities; (6) Streets; (7) Sidewalks; (8) Care, custody or control of animals; and (9) Sexual abuse. Plaintiff does not assert any of the nine exceptions in the complaint, and none of the exceptions applies to this cause of action. Accordingly, the District respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss plaintiff’s claims against the District based upon local government immunity,” the objections stated.

“42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 5522(a)(1) requires that within six months of a plaintiff’s injuries, the injured plaintiff must provide notice to the government unit of her injuries and her intent to sue the government unit. This mandatory notice is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit against a government unit, and failure to file such notice within six months of the injury bars the injured plaintiff from bringing suit against the government unit. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint against the District should be dismissed with prejudice.”

For multiple counts of negligence and gross negligence, the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages in excess of $50,000, punitive damages, costs, attorney’s fees and equitable relief as the Court may deem proper.

The plaintiff is represented by Christopher D. Penco and Keenan Holmes of Ebony Law, in Pittsburgh.

The defendants are represented by Jaime N. Doherty and Matthew C. Fergus of GRB Law, also in Pittsburgh.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-24-004886

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News