Thomas v. Bedford
389 So. 2d 405 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A teacher is civilly liable for injuries to a student resulting from corporal punishment that is unreasonable or excessive, and the defense of provocation is unavailable if there was a sufficient cooling-off period between the student's misbehavior and the teacher's reaction.
Facts:
- Joseph A. Goff, a 14-year-old student, had a history of mischievous behavior, some of which was directed at his 26-year-old teacher, Carter Bedford.
- On February 15, 1979, Goff struck Bedford a light blow in the back with his hand while Bedford was conversing with other teachers.
- When instructed to go to class, Goff instead propelled a rubber band into Bedford's face from a distance of about two feet.
- Goff then ran into his classroom, and Bedford chased him, throwing a two-foot-long board at him, which missed.
- Bedford left and went to his own classroom, where he remained for ten to fifteen minutes.
- After this period, Bedford returned to Goff's classroom, pulled Goff into an adjoining vacant room, and physically assaulted him.
- A subsequent physician's examination revealed that Goff had sustained contusions of the chest, arms, and back.
Procedural Posture:
- Anna Spear Goff Thomas, as natural tutrix for her minor son, Joseph A. Goff, filed a lawsuit in a Louisiana district court against Carter Bedford, the Caddo Parish School Board, and their liability insurance carrier for battery.
- Following a trial, the district court judge found that although the teacher's force 'greatly exceeded reasonable force,' the student's provocation was sufficient to absolve the teacher of liability, and rejected the plaintiff's demands.
- The plaintiff, Anna Spear Goff Thomas, appealed the district court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a teacher civilly liable for injuries sustained by a student when the teacher administers corporal punishment that is found to be unreasonable, even if the student's actions provoked the teacher, when the punishment occurred after a significant cooling-off period?
Opinions:
Majority - Fred W. Jones, Jr.
Yes, a teacher is liable for injuries from corporal punishment found to be unreasonable, even if provoked, if the punishment was not a spontaneous reaction. While Louisiana law permits teachers to use reasonable corporal punishment for disciplinary reasons, this privilege is limited. The punishment cannot be unreasonable or excessive. The 'aggressor doctrine,' which could excuse a reaction to provocation, is inapplicable here because Bedford had a ten-to-fifteen-minute cooling-off period after Goff's initial acts. This break in time made Bedford's subsequent actions a separate incident, not a spontaneous reaction. Since the trial court made a factual finding that Bedford's actions 'greatly exceeded reasonable force,' and this finding was not clearly wrong, Bedford is liable for the injuries he caused.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the limits of the 'aggressor doctrine' and the teacher's privilege to use corporal punishment. By focusing on the ten-to-fifteen-minute 'cooling-off' period, the court establishes that a delayed, retaliatory physical act is not protected as a disciplinary measure, even if preceded by student provocation. This precedent effectively separates a spontaneous defensive reaction from a premeditated punitive act, requiring that any corporal punishment be a measured, rational response to misconduct, rather than an emotional outburst. Future cases involving teacher discipline will likely examine the timing and motive behind the punishment, not just the student's initial behavior.
