Versprill v. School Bd. of Orange County
641 So.2d 883 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school board has a statutory and common law duty to supervise any student on school premises once an employee becomes aware of the student's presence. This duty is not contingent on the student's enrollment in a specific program or on an employee granting permission to participate in an activity.
Facts:
- Val Versprill, a fourth-grade student at Englewood Elementary School, remained on school property after the regular school day ended.
- Val and his friends encountered a teacher, James Brown, who was supervising a fee-based extended day program for a group of 15-25 students.
- Val and his friends were not enrolled in the extended day program.
- Brown's class was outside on school grounds using construction paper to project an image of a solar eclipse.
- Val testified that Brown gave him permission and supplies to participate in viewing the eclipse, a claim Brown denied.
- While participating in the activity, Val looked directly at the sun through a hole in the construction paper.
- Several months later, Val was diagnosed with solar retinopathy, resulting in permanent vision damage, reducing his vision from 20/20 to 20/40.
Procedural Posture:
- Nannette Versprill, on behalf of her son Val, sued the School Board of Orange County in a Florida trial court, alleging negligence.
- During the jury trial, the judge instructed the jury that a duty to supervise Val existed only if the teacher, James Brown, gave Val permission to participate in the eclipse viewing.
- The jury returned a special verdict finding that James Brown did not give permission to Val Versprill, resulting in a verdict in favor of the School Board.
- The trial court entered a final judgment for the School Board.
- Versprill filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the jury instruction and verdict form were fundamentally erroneous statements of law.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial.
- Versprill (Appellant) appealed the denial of her motion to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, with the School Board as the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school board's duty to supervise a student who is on school property after school hours arise only if a teacher gives that student express permission to participate in a school activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, Judge.
No. A school board's duty to supervise a student is not contingent on whether a teacher gave the student permission to participate in an activity. The jury instruction was too narrow and did not accurately state Florida law, as both state statute (§ 232.25) and the School Board's own policies establish a duty to supervise students whenever they are on school premises. This duty arises from the doctrine of in loco parentis, where school employees stand partially in the place of parents. The duty attaches once an employee becomes aware of a student's presence on campus, regardless of whether the student is engaged in a school-sponsored activity. The trial court erred by instructing the jury that a duty arose only if permission was granted, as this may have misled or confused them from considering the broader basis for the school's duty.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and broadens the scope of a school's supervisory duty in Florida, moving beyond formal activities and enrollment. It establishes that a school's responsibility for student safety attaches simply by a student's presence on campus coupled with an employee's awareness. This precedent makes it more difficult for school districts to avoid liability by claiming a student was not officially participating in an activity. The ruling reinforces the in loco parentis doctrine, emphasizing the school's custodial role whenever students are on its property.
Unlock the full brief for Versprill v. School Bd. of Orange County