How far do immunity liability limits stretch?

A 10-year-old student drowned in a school district swimming pool during a summer enrichment program. The student had severe hearing loss and epilepsy that caused her to have seizures. She attended a summer enrichment program that included swimming in the school’s pool. She had attended the enrichment program in prior summers and the parent gave permission for her to swim. There was no evidence that the student had any prior problems due to swimming, or restrictions on her ability to swim. An investigation into the student’s death revealed that she had been sitting on the ledge of the pool, had a seizure and fell into the water. The parent sued the swim coach, who was assigned to supervise the pool at the time, and the principal.

The suit was filed in federal court in an attempt to assert liability for alleged violations of the student’s constitutional rights. The parent alleged violations of both state and federal law and argued that the employees had failed to follow district policy in supervising the student because the district’s Standard Practice Manual required district pools to conform to city ordinances related to public pools, and applicable city ordinances required that a lifeguard be on duty and stationed within 20 feet of the water’s edge.

The trial court found that the district employees were immune from liability and dismissed the lawsuit, noting that there was no evidence that any individual had affirmatively harmed the student. The school district employees’ failure to keep adequate watch over the pool or react quickly enough to save her may have been negligent, but did not rise to the level of a violation of her constitutional rights.