Mrs. C. Wilkins

[mamasan]

A school in our area has deemed it's back parking lot as the new "pick up" zone for after school. This normally wouldn't present a problem except for the fact that this lot is in no way fit to handle this sort of traffic. It is supposed to be one way traffic according to the few markings that are provided in said lot. The school does not have anyone out there to enforce traffic properly. This presents the problem of many drivers/vehicles trying to rush out to beat the line, against the "one way" markings, endangering students, and creating a "Jam" in the driveway that prevents proper traffic flow and very high accident probability. I myself have almost been hit twice. The question I need to present to you is; would the school be liable if an accident occurred in the lot, due to it not being CLEARLY marked and traffic not being directed/enforced? I would like to present your answer (anonymously if need be) at the next PTA/school meeting to ensure that proper steps are taken to ensure the safety of the students.

 

[KatDini]

Why don't you ask your question at the PTA meeting without input of a bunch of anonymous intraweb strangers?

 

[army judge]

Would the school be liable if an accident occurred in the lot, due to it not being CLEARLY marked and traffic not being directed/enforced?

Only a court, after a due process (meaning a trial) has occurred can determine or apportion liability.

NORTH CAROLINA is a pure joint and several liability state.
That means that the contribution any successful plaintiff is entitled to recover from joint tort transgressor is the amount of any reasonable settlement which exceeds of the pro-rata share of liability in any third-party action or as a separate action.

Okay, this will be a bot boring, but a further clarification is required.

One must understand comparative fault, contributory negligence, as well as joint & several iability.
Comparative fault falls into one of three basic categories =
1 -pure contributory negligence
2 - pure comparative fault
3 - modified comparative fault, which some call "proportionate responsibility"

Only four states (and DC) follow the Pure Contributory Negligence Rule.
Your state is among those five.
Those jurisdictions are Alabama, District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia.
Applying The Pure Contributory Negligence Rule, any litigant found to be at least 10 percent at fault for causing an accident will recover nothing.
Bear in mind, the other litigant(s) are 90 percent liable.
The contributory negligence defense can be overcome.
It is done by one litigant proving the other litigant's willful and wanton acts caused the injury, therefore the defendant cannot claim contributory negligence bars the other party from recovering anything.
If it can be proven the opposing litigant had the last clear chance to avoid an accident BUT failed to so act, that litigant can still be held accountable EVEN IF the other litigant is found contributorily negligent.

Bottom line, FINALLY, the property owner (the school district) won't be part of that equation, should a lawsuit ever be filed.
The drivers or pedestrians assume certain risks by choosing to enter upon the property.
It would require some extraordinary circumstance to even get close to suing the school district for the things you cite.
You see, your duty to "avoid" is breached if you assess certain risks (even on your mind), and then proceed to enter upon despite the risks of which you became aware.



​

I would like to present your answer (anonymously if need be) at the next PTA/school meeting to ensure that proper steps are taken to ensure the safety of the students.

I commend your sense of civic duty.
You are wise to discuss the issues with your elected school board.
Don't bore them as I've done you and others.
Simply tell them of your observations and ask if a better, safer, more efficient solution can be designed and deployed.
I'm a lawyer (and a judge), and have always hated legal reasoning and argument as its taught.
The law was better when it was "read" by the legendary lawyers of the past.
Common sense, dear poster, just use a common sense approach to things and avoid the legal "nonsense" when and where possible.

 

[Betty3]

We can't give you a definite answer to your question. As suggested, bring the problems up at the PTA meeting and/or with your elected school board.

 

[ElleMD]

No the school is not liable for another driver's reckless behavior on their property. If you don't like the way pick up and drop off are handled, just speak up at the PTA meeting. A doubt anonymous opinions of strangers off the internet are going to carry any weight. What might is having a few parents who have the same problem attend and speak up.

 

[mamasan]

I wasn't looking for opinions.... I was looking for "legal",factual arguments (so to say). Not to sue the school but to "persuade" the principal to have the parking lot more clearly marked and controlled during this chaotic daily event. The safety of the kids and families is my priority. It has been brought up to the principal and his only reply is..."It'll get better". I have looked into liability laws as far as "public spaces" are concerned and there is a liability for the "owner" of the parking lot to provide clear and distinct marking and traffic control in the event of extraordinary circumstance,but I'm not clear on wether or not the same applies for County owned properties. And as every one knows...the more supported facts you have when debating an issue, the better the outcome usually.

 

[army judge]

I wasn't looking for opinions.... I was looking for "legal",factual arguments (so to say). Not to sue the school but to "persuade" the principal to have the parking lot more clearly marked and controlled during this chaotic daily event. The safety of the kids and families is my priority. It has been brought up to the principal and his only reply is..."It'll get better". I have looked into liability laws as far as "public spaces" are concerned and there is a liability for the "owner" of the parking lot to provide clear and distinct marking and traffic control in the event of extraordinary circumstance,but I'm not clear on wether or not the same applies for County owned properties. And as every one knows...the more supported facts you have when debating an issue, the better the outcome usually.

There is no legal argument available to compel the school to comply.
The school believes there is no risk significant enough to force them to rehabilitate the pick up/drop off zone that is also used as a parking lot.
The correct entity to discuss your concerns with, however, is your elected school board.
It won't be a debate.
You will be allowed to present your concerns and ask the board to investigate them.
No court can compel the board to do anything.
All you can do is ask.
If you're denied, you can get a group of voters to sign a petition to support your suggested improvements.
Even then, the board isn't required to do what the voters have requested.
You can get the media involved, as squeaky wheels often get greased.
You can investigate how much it'll cost to effect the changes you desire.
Then collect donations to fund the improvements.
That's civic action, too.
You condition your gift tat it only go towards the pick up/drop off zone improvements.
Those are your options.
Public organizations are as strapped for funds as citizens who are being TAXED into extinction.