Banning Father Daughter dances in school

[StrangeSox]

They are...but if you're making an acception/accommodation for a peanut allergy, which while a more common allergy still afflicts a vast minority people, I -- as a concerned parent -- want to know why you won't make an acception for my kid who is deathly allergic to dairy?

 

You've set precedent on banning foods being an acceptable practice for just in case reasons -- so now you've opened the door for litigation when it comes to any/other foods, too.

 

Like I said...where do we draw the line?

Accidental contact with peanut butter is fairly easy and potentially deadly.not true of dairy.

[Y2HH]

Accidental contact with peanut butter is fairly easy and potentially deadly.not true of dairy.

 

It's more than just peanut butter...this is just being used as an easy example.

 

Still has nothing to do with the fact that precedent has been set. It's ok to ban peanut butter for what is already a vast minority...but it's not ok to ban honey or other nuts? So you'll make an acception for something that affects 0.4-0.6% of the total population, but not something that affects only 0.1%?

[Iwritecode]

Right, they couldn't have the school make minor accommodations for him. You can for peanut allergies.

 

I think it's actually more common for the school to separate the one kid from everyone else during lunch rather than ban peanut butter completely. I've only heard of a handful of schools with a peanut butter ban.

 

[Y2HH]

Also of scientific note:

 

Food is generally the most common cause of anaphylaxis. Common food triggers include nuts, shellfish (shrimp, lobster), dairy products, egg whites, and sesame seeds.

 

It's it's far more than just peanut butter than can cause it, and dairy CAN kill you just the same...a fallacy people here have repeated and said it cannot. It can.

[Y2HH]

Oh, also of statistical note:

 

150 people die annually from serious allergic food reactions. That includes adults.

 

Meanwhile...about 10,000 children are hospitalized annually with traumatic brain injuries from sports.

 

Let's ban all sports while we're at it, since it's 10000% more likely your child will die from that than a peanut allergy.

 

For f***s sake, people. Just stop.

[Soxbadger]

Its mainly liability with allergies.

 

If a law could be passed that would make schools not liable for it, I doubt they would have any problems. But the risk of being sued for millions isnt worth having peanuts.

[Y2HH]

Its mainly liability with allergies.

 

If a law could be passed that would make schools not liable for it, I doubt they would have any problems. But the risk of being sued for millions isnt worth having peanuts.

 

We would never pass laws in this country to tamp down lawsuits...it would destroy our last great resource...lawyers!

[Soxbadger]

We would never pass laws in this country to tamp down lawsuits...it would destroy our last great resource...lawyers!

 

Thats not even close to true.

 

Look up tort immunity and municipal liability acts. Schools for whatever reason dont aggressively ask for protection like other areas of govt. No idea why not.

 

 

[Y2HH]

Thats not even close to true.

 

Look up tort immunity and municipal liability acts. Schools for whatever reason dont aggressively ask for protection like other areas of govt. No idea why not.

 

Don't ruin my lawyer joke.

[Jenksismyhero]

Thats not even close to true.

 

Look up tort immunity and municipal liability acts. Schools for whatever reason dont aggressively ask for protection like other areas of govt. No idea why not.

 

School districts are a local public entity under the tort immunity act. So you'd have to allege/prove willful and wanton conduct. Not removing peanut butter from the menu couldn't possibly be such conduct unless they knew of the kid with the allergy and purposefully gave him a peanut butter sandwich, something along those lines. Simply having it available to other children with the knowledge of his allergy wouldn't be enough.

 

[StrangeSox]

I'm gonna guess that the administrators' actions might actually be driven by a desire to create a safe learning environment for the student.

[Soxbadger]

School districts are a local public entity under the tort immunity act. So you'd have to allege/prove willful and wanton conduct. Not removing peanut butter from the menu couldn't possibly be such conduct unless they knew of the kid with the allergy and purposefully gave him a peanut butter sandwich, something along those lines. Simply having it available to other children with the knowledge of his allergy wouldn't be enough.

 

The problem is that its a square peg and a round hole. There should be an explicit part of the act that covers food/schools. The reason is because I can argue that if the school knew of the allergy, not taking actions to prevent the death would be willful and wanton.

 

Maybe id win, maybe id lose, but the risk is likely enough to get a settlement.

[Jenksismyhero]

The problem is that its a square peg and a round hole. There should be an explicit part of the act that covers food/schools. The reason is because I can argue that if the school knew of the allergy, not taking actions to prevent the death would be willful and wanton.

 

Maybe id win, maybe id lose, but the risk is likely enough to get a settlement.

 

I'd be pretty confident in winning a summary judgment there. You'd have to have some pretty good facts to plead willful/wanton. Otherwise the school would be sued on a daily basis. My kid has a weak immune system. I tell the school this. They should know to keep my kid isolated so he doesn't get sick! Come on, that's a ludicrous degree of care there. Giving a kid known to have a nut allergy a spoonful of peanut butter is one thing. Simply allowing him to be in a lunch room if you serve peanut butter to other students is another.

[Jenksismyhero]

The problem is that its a square peg and a round hole. There should be an explicit part of the act that covers food/schools. The reason is because I can argue that if the school knew of the allergy, not taking actions to prevent the death would be willful and wanton.

Maybe id win, maybe id lose, but the risk is likely enough to get a settlement.

 

And being on both sides of the litigation table, this is the main problem with our profession these days. If every business simply had the balls to say "no, we're fighting this to the end, he doesn't deserve a dime" the cost-of-defense filings would stop pretty quickly. Plaintiff attorneys wouldn't want to waste the time/energy/money on fighting a case with a 5% chance of winning. But as it is, today you know that even if you get to a summary judgment phase the defense is going to pay you 5-15k just because that's the cost to pay their attorneys to file and win the MSJ or motion to dismiss.

 

It's at the point now where Judges use this fact as part of their pre-trial/mediation techniques. "Look, it's going to cost you X to try this thing, i'll try to get him/her down to X amount which is a little more than the cost of defense, but not worth the gamble of trying it."

[Soxbadger]

I'd be pretty confident in winning a summary judgment there. You'd have to have some pretty good facts to plead willful/wanton. Otherwise the school would be sued on a daily basis. My kid has a weak immune system. I tell the school this. They should know to keep my kid isolated so he doesn't get sick! Come on, that's a ludicrous degree of care there. Giving a kid known to have a nut allergy a spoonful of peanut butter is one thing. Simply allowing him to be in a lunch room if you serve peanut butter to other students is another.

 

There is a difference between a kid "getting sick" and a kid dieing.

 

If a kid dies because of a peanut allergy and the school was on notice of the allergy, how exactly are you going to win on summary judgment? All I have to do is allege that the school acted recklessly and its a question of fact. Allowing other children to have peanut butter around a kid who can die from it, could be considered willful and wanton. Its absolutely a question of fact.

 

Why?

 

If my kid wanted to bring a lion to school and the school said okay, would another parent argue that was willful and wanton by the school? Of course.

 

A Willful and Wanton Conduct is a willful or wanton injury that must have been intentional or the act must have been committed under circumstances exhibiting a reckless disregard for the safety of others, such as a failure, after knowledge of impending danger, to exercise ordinary care to prevent it or a failure to discover the danger through recklessness or carelessness when it could have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary care. [Henslee v. Provena Hosps., 369 F. Supp. 2d 970, 977-978 (N.D. Ill. 2005)]

 

The problem is notice. Once the school is on notice, its hard to argue that preventing a kid from touching a peanut isnt a question of fact over whether the school used "ordinary care."

 

Now if the school didnt know about the allergy, then summary judgment would be very likely.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

There is a difference between a kid "getting sick" and a kid dieing.

 

If a kid dies because of a peanut allergy and the school was on notice of the allergy, how exactly are you going to win on summary judgment? All I have to do is allege that the school acted recklessly and its a question of fact. Allowing other children to have peanut butter around a kid who can die from it, could be considered willful and wanton. Its absolutely a question of fact.

 

Why?

 

If my kid wanted to bring a lion to school and the school said okay, would another parent argue that was willful and wanton by the school? Of course.

 

 

 

The problem is notice. Once the school is on notice, its hard to argue that preventing a kid from touching a peanut isnt a question of fact over whether the school used "ordinary care."

 

Now if the school didnt know about the allergy, then summary judgment would be very likely.

 

Simply having notice of something isn't enough. Bringing a lion to school has a high probability of harm. That's foreseeable. Knowing a kid has a nut allergy and allowing him in a large lunch room with other kids eating nuts, what are the odds he gets sick/dies? I've never heard of it. I'm not sure it's ever happened before. It's gotta be incredibly rare. That's totally unforeseeable (not to mention the lack of proximate cause - condition, not a cause argument - might be at play).

 

What you're suggesting is the school acted willfully and wantonly so long as they're on notice that a kid has an allergy. In a school full of 1000 kids, are you really going to require the school to know the severity of allergies for every single kid and protect them accordingly. That's an "intolerable" requirement, especially for an immune entity.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

I'm gonna guess that the administrators' actions might actually be driven by a desire to create a safe learning environment for the student.

It's impossible to have a safe learning environment for the other students if they don't have peanuts.

[StrangeSox]

Fascism, that's what this is. You know who instituted the first school peanut-ban? The Nazis, that's who.

[Balta1701]

Simply having notice of something isn't enough. Bringing a lion to school has a high probability of harm. That's foreseeable. Knowing a kid has a nut allergy and allowing him in a large lunch room with other kids eating nuts, what are the odds he gets sick/dies? I've never heard of it. I'm not sure it's ever happened before. It's gotta be incredibly rare. That's totally unforeseeable (not to mention the lack of proximate cause - condition, not a cause argument - might be at play).

 

What you're suggesting is the school acted willfully and wantonly so long as they're on notice that a kid has an allergy. In a school full of 1000 kids, are you really going to require the school to know the severity of allergies for every single kid and protect them accordingly. That's an "intolerable" requirement, especially for an immune entity.

Your schools don't have access to your medical records? Mine always did. If a person has a severe enough allergy whereby contact with a particular product would be life threatening, and its been diagnosed, I'd expect a school to know that, and if its a real issue you deal with it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Your schools don't have access to your medical records? Mine always did. If a person has a severe enough allergy whereby contact with a particular product would be life threatening, and its been diagnosed, I'd expect a school to know that, and if its a real issue you deal with it.

 

So stick every student in a room by themselves, give them a monitor to watch the teacher on and the school has done the proper thing to avoid any and all potential issues. Done.

[StrangeSox]

So stick every student in a room by themselves, give them a monitor to watch the teacher on and the school has done the proper thing to avoid any and all potential issues. Done.

 

Alternatively, ask parents not to send their kids to school with peanut butter. The horror.

[Y2HH]

Alternatively, ask parents not to send their kids to school with peanut butter. The horror.

 

Again, where do we draw the line?

 

The horror is that you, nor anyone else, has answered this question, despite my posting of scientific fact that OTHER foods also cause anaphylaxis... including DAIRY products.

 

But don't let facts get in the way of your opportunistic anti peanut butter campaign.

 

Many foods can trigger anaphylaxis; this may occur upon the first known ingestion. Common triggering foods vary around the world. In Western cultures, ingestion of or exposure to peanuts, wheat, tree nuts, shellfish, fish, milk, and eggs are the most prevalent causes.

 

Better ban all of them if you need to ban one of them.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

I have answered the question but consider that I'm not researching for a public policy PhD and therefore can't provide some clear, distinguishable bright line of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" if one could even be found.

 

If a student has a severe shellfish allergy and the likelihood of accidental second-hand ingestion is sufficient, sure, at that school, ask parents not to send shellfish in their kids' lunches. The same for other allergens. The problem with peanut butter is that the oils leave a thin residue and can easily be ingested without notice by a child who touches something with the residue on it, and that even such a small amount can be deadly. Can the same be said for dairy or other foods? I do not know, but I would suspect not.

[Y2HH]

I have answered the question but consider that I'm not researching for a public policy PhD and therefore can't provide some clear, distinguishable bright line of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" if one could even be found.

 

If a student has a severe shellfish allergy and the likelihood of accidental second-hand ingestion is sufficient, sure, at that school, ask parents not to send shellfish in their kids' lunches. The same for other allergens. The problem with peanut butter is that the oils leave a thin residue and can easily be ingested without notice by a child who touches something with the residue on it, and that even such a small amount can be deadly. Can the same be said for dairy or other foods? I do not know, but I would suspect not.

 

Cheery pick shell fish out of the list when you could have picked milk, which exists in every school. Nice try.

[Balta1701]

Again, where do we draw the line?

 

The horror is that you, nor anyone else, has answered this question, despite my posting of scientific fact that OTHER foods also cause anaphylaxis... including DAIRY products.

 

But don't let facts get in the way of your opportunistic anti peanut butter campaign.

 

Many foods can trigger anaphylaxis; this may occur upon the first known ingestion. Common triggering foods vary around the world. In Western cultures, ingestion of or exposure to peanuts, wheat, tree nuts, shellfish, fish, milk, and eggs are the most prevalent causes.

 

Better ban all of them if you need to ban one of them.

In the event that you actually have a possibly lethal milk allergy in your school, you should take steps to prevent exposure to that product. A big question winds up being the level of exposure...if getting it on skin can be lethal, then you have to find a way to keep the kid away from that product.

 

Shellfish...well I don't know what school you went to that can afford that.

 

One thing worth noting though is that nut allergies are 5x more common than any of the other ones youve referred to, so in the large majority of cases that's going to be the one you have to worry about.