CompFox AI Summary
This case involves an appeal concerning the negligence of a school principal and secretary in Warren County, Tennessee, for releasing an eleven-year-old student, Kelly Marie Snider, to her uncle, Pernell Snider, who subsequently raped her. Kelly had complained of illness and her father could not be reached. The school officials released her to her uncle, unaware of any threat. Kelly's parents alleged that the school violated a board policy and their specific instructions not to release Kelly to anyone but them. The court determined that a violation of school policy is not negligence per se and that the school officials were not negligent under the circumstances, as they had no notice of the uncle's potential for harm. Furthermore, the court held that even if there was negligence, the injury was unforeseeable, thus the school's actions were not the proximate cause of the harm. The Circuit Court's dismissal of the action was affirmed.
Snider v. Snider is a workers' compensation case decided in Court of Appeals of Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
This case involves an appeal concerning the negligence of a school principal and secretary in Warren County, Tennessee, for releasing an eleven-year-old student, Kelly Marie Snider, to her uncle, Pernell Snider, who subsequently raped her. Kelly had complained of illness and her father could not be reached. The school officials released her to her uncle, unaware of any threat. Kelly's parents alleged that the school violated a board policy and their specific instructions not to release Kelly to anyone but them. The court determined that a violation of school policy is not negligence per se and that the school officials were not negligent under the circumstances, as they had no notice of the uncle's potential for harm. Furthermore, the court held that even if there was negligence, the injury was unforeseeable, thus the school's actions were not the proximate cause of the harm. The Circuit Court's dismissal of the action was affirmed.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.