The original problem which was proposed for this study is as follows: What are some of the provisions being made for secondary schools in providing for tort liability when students engage in off-campus curricular activity for mutual benefit of private party and the student, in absence of legal provision in the California State Education Code?

Thesis--University of Florida. / Description based on print version record. Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 133-137).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Illinois State University, 1969. / Title from title page screen, viewed Aug. 24, 2004. Dissertation Committee: Benjamin C. Hubbard (chair), Alan Hickrod, Alic Ebel. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 124-132) and abstract. Also available in print.

This dissertation analyzed public court decisions in cases against Oklahoma school districts and their employees involving sovereign immunity claims filed under Oklahoma's Governmental Tort Claims Act. The questions addressed were: (1) How have the Oklahoma courts interpreted the Governmental Tort Claims Act, (Okla. Stat. tit. 51 § 151 et seq.) in litigation against school districts and their employees? (2) What are the limits of immunity protection for Oklahoma school districts and their employees? (3) How has the statute of limitations in Okla. Stat. tit. 51 § 156 and Okla. Stat. tit. 51 § 157 been applied to Oklahoma educators in tort litigation? This dissertation utilized legal research as the methodology to answer the research questions. Chapter II provides a review of existing literature regarding sovereign immunity in the United States. Chapter III is a comprehensive study of Oklahoma sovereign immunity cases filed against Oklahoma school districts and educators under the Governmental Tort Claims Act with regard to negligence, corporal punishment and the statute of limitations. Chapter IV discusses the findings of the analysis of cases in Oklahoma and the amount of protection afforded to Oklahoma school districts and educators.

No description available.

This dissertation examines the impact of the 1992 Georgia Tort Claims Act on educators in court decisions involving liability cases against Georgia school districts and/ or their respective employees. By examining pertinent court cases in which Georgia educators were, for the first time, subjected to potential litigation, the researcher outlines circumstances in which educators can and should be held liable for their actions. Additionally, the researcher analyzes the Tort Claims Acts of Texas, Oklahoma, and Mississippi as well. This analysis allows the researcher to contrast the types of litigious actions that educators in each of these states are held liable. Findings include the types of actions in which educators in each of the respective states are subject to liability. Case study analysis of randomly selected court cases involving tort liability, provides the infrastructure for in-depth research allowing the following questions to be addressed: (1) How have Georgia courts interpreted the Georgia Tort Claims Act in litigation against school personnel and school districts? (2) How do tort liability rulings, involving school personnel or districts, in other states within the United States compare with similar cases filed in Georgia since 1992? The Georgia Tort Claim Act of 1992 propelled an array of circumstances in which educational entities would be held liable for their actions. This research clearly explains the types of actions in which educators in the state of Georgia are subject to suit and to what degree they are subsequently held liable. Case study research also uncovered specific areas in which Georgia educators can be held liable. Specific research involving actions deemed either ministerial or discretionary are detailed specifically through case analysis. Additionally, the degree to which liability insurance provides protection for educational entities or their respective employees is also addressed in this research in order that state-by-state comparisons can be understood.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 1995. / Title from title page screen, viewed May 10, 2006. Dissertation Committee: John R. McCarthy (chair), Marcilene Dutton, Edward R. Hines, David L. Tucker. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 147-153) and abstract. Also available in print.

This dissertation examines the significance of the Kansas Tort Claims Act of 1979 on state of Kansas court decisions in litigation against Kansas school districts and their employees. Through providing a historical perspective of the adoption and abolishment of the doctrine of sovereign immunity in the United States, which subsequently led to the enactment of the Federal Tort Claims Act, and ultimately led to the Kansas Tort Claims Act, the researcher analyzes pertinent case law and scholarly commentary pertaining to school negligence litigation. The goal of the analysis is to answer the following research question: How have Kansas state courts interpreted the Kansas Tort Claims Act in litigation against state school districts and their employees? Although the KTCA provides citizens with a vehicle for redress against governmental entities by virtue of tort claims, the KTCA also provides immunities from liability for governmental entities and their employees under exceptions to the KTCA. Most notably, the discretionary function exception and the recreational use exception are two exceptions to liability applied in a significant number of tort cases against Kansas school districts and employees. The case law analysis provides explanations for the types of actions of negligence that Kansas courts have qualified for school district or school employee liability, and, when permitted, negligent actions that qualified for immunity under a KTCA exception to liability.

This dissertation analyzed court decisions in injuries on school grounds cases under the Louisiana Governmental Claims Act. The question addressed was: How have the Louisiana courts interpreted the Louisiana Governmental Claims Act in litigation against Louisiana school districts and their employees? The intent of this study was to show how Louisiana's legal system has evolved, and how that evolution affected tort cases involving school boards and school board employees. Doctrinal legal research was the methodology used to answer the research question. To limit the number of cases analyzed, this study only focused on tort claims involving injury on school property. In order to gain a broad perspective, tort claims cases filed prior to the 1974 Louisiana Constitution, cases filed after the 1974 Louisiana Constitution, and cases filed after the 1995 Louisiana Liability Limits Amendment, and the Louisiana Governmental Claims Act of 1996 were analyzed. By analyzing the tort claims brought against Louisiana school districts and employees during the various time-periods, it was clear to see how the case rulings reflected the frequent changes of the Louisiana Constitution and its' laws. In the end, the state continued to control who could sue them and how much they would pay in damages.