363 posts / 0 new
Last post
Posted on: Thu, 05/08/2003 - 1:07am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by erik:
[b]
Canadians vs Americans round 3 ... [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/tongue.gif[/img][/b]
Cam's Mom, MommaBear and I are all Americans. Should we come up with different "team" names? [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/wink.gif[/img]
Ding, ding, ding. Back to the ring...

Posted on: Thu, 05/08/2003 - 1:28am
anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

Quote:Originally posted by Cam's Mom:
[b]Gail,
I see what you are saying about the principal being required by law to do the gun/drug thing but by him saying he holds more liability with peanuts being in a peanut free area is still contradictory to the gun/drug free term...he is required by law to display it and enforce it but does that mean he is liable when a kid shows up and has in his possession a weapon or drugs?
His only added liability to having a peanut free area would be if there was no action taken when it was seen. The same as with a gun or drugs, he isn't going to be held liable if Johnny shoots another kid unless he didn't take action to prevent the shooting.
[img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] heads butting hard [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img] [/b]
Didn't want this to get lost on the other page...
Erik: You and River are Canadian and your opinions have been the same as my [i]American[/i] opinion, does that mean I'm [i]American/Canadian[/i] in the ring? [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by Cam's Mom (edited May 08, 2003).]

Posted on: Thu, 05/08/2003 - 1:38am
erik's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by Cam's Mom:
[b] Erik: You and River are Canadian and your opinions have been the same as my [i]American[/i] opinion, does that mean I'm [i]American/Canadian[/i] in the ring? [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]
[/b]
Hi Cam's Mom,
But you are from Florida.. half the people in that state are snowbird Canadians anyway so you've been influenced from all the Canadians in your neck of the woods.
You are now an honourary Canadian American [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/biggrin.gif[/img]

Posted on: Thu, 05/08/2003 - 2:27am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by Cam's Mom:
[b]Gail,
I see what you are saying about the principal being required by law to do the gun/drug thing but by him saying he holds more liability with peanuts being in a peanut free area is still contradictory to the gun/drug free term...he is required by law to display it and enforce it but does that mean he is liable when a kid shows up and has in his possession a weapon or drugs? [/b]
No. I read those school polices to say that
schools are liable when they don't [b]report gun/drug violations to law enforcement authorities [/b] (e.g calling the police and the other actions to which the law requires them to do). A kid showing up w/ a gun is breaking the law. The school would break the law if they didn't report this illegal act to law enforcement. The school would be liable for this kids' actions if they did not follow the law (report it to law enforcement). The school is not taking on an "enforcement" role, it's reporting it to the enforcement authorities. I think, this is where their liablity ends (tho perhaps not completely)... when they fulfill their legal duties by reporting it to law enforcement.
So, let's play this out. The principal is aware of a violation in the "peanut free" "law" he he chose to create. Who does he report the violation to? The police? [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/rolleyes.gif[/img] If he is creating his own "law" then he is also must create his own "enforcement" since none other exists. And is liable for it. Unlike dress codes and beepers, life threatening food allergies take on much higher risk of harm (=greater lability)... and unlike drugs/guns where he is not liable once he reports the violation to enforcement.
[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited May 08, 2003).]

Posted on: Thu, 05/08/2003 - 3:02am
anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

The principal didn't report the alcohol (illegal use and possession) incident of my daughter to the police, he enforced his policy by expelling her from the school. No law enforcement was used or contacted. Neither were the 2 boys who brought the alcohol on to school property, again illegal possession, nothing whatsoever was done to them.
Same goes for drug free workplaces...they don't contact law enforcement, they either fire them (enforcing their policy) or offer them the opportunity for rehabilation.
It's still (IMO) a matter of the schools picking and choosing what they [b]want[/b] to ban, and in the drug/gun free policies with the backing of the state and federal law. Would they ban guns and drugs if their was no law? You bet they would.
[img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]

Posted on: Thu, 05/08/2003 - 3:20am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Quote:Originally posted by Cam's Mom:
[b]The principal didn't report the alcohol (illegal use and possession) incident of my daughter to the police, he enforced his policy by expelling her from the school. No law enforcement was used or contacted. Neither were the 2 boys who brought the alcohol on to school property, again illegal possession, nothing whatsoever was done to them.
Same goes for drug free workplaces...they don't contact law enforcement, they either fire them (enforcing their policy) or offer them the opportunity for rehabilation.
It's still (IMO) a matter of the schools picking and choosing what they [b]want[/b] to ban, and in the drug/gun free policies with the backing of the state and federal law. Would they ban guns and drugs if their was no law? You bet they would.
[img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img][/b]
Yes, absolutely, I think they pick and choose. Of course. IMO, I think they pick those that don't carry much liability (like dress codes)...because they come at no/little safety risk. And it's easy for them to adopt gun/drug free policies because they mean nothing more that what they are already bound by law to do. They would be held to the same accountability if they had no such policy.
And for the terrible incident w/ your daughter, all I say to that is that when your principal did not report this illegal act he exercised very poor judgement (something that you I'd guess you probably already knew) and opened himself/school to a lawsuit from you.
Would they ban guns and drugs if their was no law? I'm not so sure, Lana. I am [b]much [/b]less optomistic than you!
[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited May 08, 2003).]

Posted on: Thu, 05/08/2003 - 3:22am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

key board problem.... sorry
[This message has been edited by Gail W (edited May 08, 2003).]

Posted on: Thu, 05/08/2003 - 3:24am
Gail W's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/06/2001 - 09:00

Edited to say: Oooops sorry.
not sure twhat happened here.

Posted on: Thu, 05/08/2003 - 3:29am
anonymous's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/28/2009 - 16:42

Gail,
Still gotta add...there liability can't end if something has happened. The school is definately liable in my daughters example. Even if he had reported the incident to law enforcement, it would have been after the fact. Their liability still is the same because he didn't stop the act once he knew it was being violated.
Now with a PF policy, he simply doesn't have a law to back up his enforcement, but he still has enforcement duties. Where is his liability if he decides not to pose a PF area for my son and then he has a reaction, he has been made aware of the danger that the pnut poses, but yet did not have preventable measures. Take the gun incident, hypothetically speaking, there are no laws against drugs/guns, but there is a policy for that school being drug/gun free: Johnny is seen with a gun, no action is taken and then later he's playing with the gun and it shoots another student accidentally. Would he be liable? Yes, because him or his employee was grossly negligent in not taking action when the gun was seen, would he be liable had he not seen the gun, no because he had a policy in place trying to prevent students from bringing guns to school.
[This message has been edited by Cam's Mom (edited May 08, 2003).]

Posted on: Thu, 05/08/2003 - 3:35am
DebO's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/15/1999 - 09:00

The principle behind reducing the risk by eliminating peanuts is not because they are illegal. It is based on the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms which supports modifying the school environment to accomodate students with disabilities.
(I will avoid linking to Momma Bear's multiple posts about disability/non - disability, should PA be treated differently from diabetes, etc....)
Furthermore, in Canadian common law the standard set by the courts is that the school boards have a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill to ensure that students are kept reasonably safe. Since an anaphylactic reaction to an allergen is a risk that is pre-identified and known, the board has an obligation to attempt to reduce this risk. Hence the abundance of "peanut free" classrooms. The boards DO NOT have an obligation to provide a completely allergen-free environment, but the Canadian standard is that they should make an effort to reduce the risk.

Pages

Forum

Click on one of the categories below to see all forum topics.

Peanut Free Store

More Articles

Halloween can be treacherous for a child with a peanut allergy and a parent who is trying to stay...

What kid doesn't love dressing up in a costume and going door to door on Halloween night, and collecting a bag full of candy? Unfortunately, this...

Are you looking for peanut-free candies as a special treat for a child with...

For those with peanut allergies, baked goods present a serious risk. Many baked goods do not appear to contain peanuts, yet were baked in a...

Do you have a sweet tooth and more specifically a chocolate craving? Those with peanut allergies must...