Parenting is very challenging and there is no manual on how to be a good parent. When your child suffers a injury in New York, you need an experiencedNew York attorney to help protect your rights.
In Pace v. the State of Maryland, the critical question of duty is discussed. What are the obligations of your New York school to protect your child from eating foods they are allergic to?
In this case a Maryland court addresses the question of whether your child’s school is responsible for making sure that lunch, which may contain food allergens, is not being served to children with food allergies. This question is a result of confusion as to whether there is a duty imposed on schools by their receipt of funds under the National School Lunch Act (NSLA).
It is very common for children to suffer from food allergies. In instances where your child does have these serious allergies, which can even be fatal, it is safer to prepare lunch for your children. This court clarified this point by stating that there is no responsibility to protect children with food allergies placed on anyone but the parents. You do not want your child to suffer injuries because of their exposure to food with allergens. Even if you speak to your children’s school, the school has no duty to maintain a record of your children’s food allergies nor do they have to make sure that your child does not ingest the food they are allergic to.
At least according to this Maryland court ruling.
Pace v. the State of Maryland arose when a child that had a food allergy to peanut butter went to school without a lunch or lunch money. This Maryland public elementary school had a policy of providing lunch to the children who did not have anything to eat. Pace testified that she knew of the school policy and informed the school of her daughter’s food allergy in the beginning of the school year. The mother even went as far as to give the school nurse a dose of epinephrine, which could be dispensed to her daughter if she ever ingested any peanut products.
As is customary at many schools, one of the lunch options was a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The plaintiff in this case was given this sandwich causing her to suffer from a life threatening attack, which resulted in her being rushed to the hospital in an ambulance. The child did not suffer serious physical injuries, but she suffered with post traumatic stress and increasing fear of attending school again.
Pace blamed the school for the symptoms her child was exhibiting, and she subsequently sued the State of Maryland through its several state and county educational departments (“Defendants”). Pace argued under the theory of negligence because she felt the Defendants had a statutory duty of care which they had breached.
Duty is a central issue in most New York personal injury cases. In order to bring a cause of action for negligence in New York, a plaintiff is required to clearly present four crucial components. The plaintiff must first show that the defendant had a specified duty of care, following which it must be proven that there was a clear breach of this duty by the defendant. Then, the plaintiff must prove that injuries to the plaintiff were directly and proximately caused by the defendant’s breach. And lastly, the plaintiff must prove that there were damages that were a result of this breach.
The court in Pace dismissed the plaintiffs case because it was found that there was no duty created by the NSLA that would be imposed on the state. The court cited the public duty doctrine, which states that in instances where a duty could be imposed on the state by a statute or common law, a suit for breach of this duty is considered unenforceable. The court explained that the NSLA only responsibility was to provide subsidies to schools to help pay for the “credit lunches” they provide to students in need of school lunch. By taking this money and providing these lunches to students, the court held that the state was not agreeing to take on any other duties or responsibilities.
Therefore, the fact that Pace did warn the school of her child’s food allergies is irrelevant because it was not within the schools responsibilities to protect these children from an possible allergies. The duty was not owed by the school before or after this notice was provided by the mother.
In this case, and in this court at least, the court ruled we are responsible for what our children eat. We must educate ourselves on the policies of our schools and take preventive steps in order to avoid injuries to our children.
If you have been injured contact New York injury attorneys at Law Offices of Nicholas Rose, PLLC to schedule a free appointment. Call 718-261-0546.
