Elementary classroom teachers' knowledge of tort liability for negligence

The purpose of this research study was to investigate the legal knowledge of Florida's public elementary classroom teachers in the area of tort liability for negligence. A second purpose of the study was to assess the knowledge of school law in the area of negligence according to specific variables to determine if significant differences in knowledge existed among groups of teachers classified by: years of teaching experience, whether or not teachers took a school law course or inservice, college degree held and whether or not teachers had administrative experience. A validated survey instrument consisting of 22 scenarios based on decided court cases in the United States was utilized. These cases included court decisions ranging from 1938–1994, and represented the categories of duty and standard of care, proper instruction, proper supervision, proper maintenance, field trips, and post-injury treatment. ^ A random sample of 420 elementary classroom teachers were sent the survey instrument to complete, and a total of 309 surveys were returned producing a return rate of 77%. The results of this research study revealed that the overall level of legal knowledge of public elementary classroom teachers in the State of Florida produced a mean percent correct of 53%. The range of scores varied from 18%–82%, with the approximate average of correct answers of 12 out of 22. The category of proper instruction produced the lowest mean percent correct of 35%, and the area of post-injury treatment yielded the highest mean percent correct of 78%. ^ The findings of this study emphasize the necessity of preparing teachers regarding their legal rights, duties and responsibilities. The need for teachers to receive training at the preservice and inservice levels has become clear by this study. ^

An assessment of legal knowledge of preservice teachers completing accredited teacher education programs in South Florida

The purpose of the study was to assess the legal knowledge of preservice teachers completing their educational training at accredited South Florida universities. The population consisted of 372 preservice kindergarten through twelfth grade teachers completing their educational training in any area of public school education.^ The researcher selected areas of school law to assess based on nationwide studies of litigation involving teachers and school boards, the areas most pertinent to the teachers' daily activities and responsibilities. A forty-item instrument was developed and administered to preservice teachers at six South Florida public and private universities. The areas of school law surveyed were tort liability, teachers' rights as instructors and employees, and students' rights. The research questions asked if preservice teachers possess a fundamental knowledge of school law in any of the identified areas and if a significant difference of legal knowledge existed when comparing preservice teachers by university and comparing preservice elementary and preservice secondary teachers. The criteria for a fundamental knowledge of school law was established as scoring 80% or above on the total survey or any area of school law.^ Conclusions. (1) On the overall survey, the preservice teachers did not exhibit a fundamental knowledge of school law. The mean score was 64.2%, with 11.6% of the respondents scoring at or above the 80% level. (2) The preservice teachers did not possess a fundamental knowledge of school law in any of the three areas of school law, though the survey revealed a difference in the preservice teachers' knowledge in the specific areas. The scores were tort liability, 71.9%; teachers' rights, 65%; and students' rights, 52.3%. (3) A significant difference did not exist between elementary and secondary preservice teachers' knowledge of school law. (4) A significant difference did not exist among the preservice teachers' knowledge of school law when compared by university.^ The study suggested a need for increased instruction in these areas of school law to preservice teachers prior to the beginning of their teaching careers. ^

The effects of defendant account on damage award decisions

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the manner in which civil defendants account for their behavior influences compensatory and punitive damage awards. Jurors read three civil trial summaries, in which I manipulated injury severity (high vs. low), defendant reprehensibility (high vs. low), defendant status (individual vs. corporate), and account (concession, excuse, justification or refusal) in a factorial design. I also included four control groups in which the defendant stipulated liability. In all other conditions, participants read that a jury had found the defendant negligent. Only defendant reprehensibility influenced punitive awards. Both plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility influenced compensatory awards. When individuals offered justifications and when corporations offered excuses, jurors awarded lower compensatory awards against low reprehensibility defendants than against high reprehensibility defendants. Negligence stipulations led to lower damage awards for individuals than for corporations. Additionally, concessions tended to produce lower awards when combined with a stipulation of negligence as opposed to a jury decision. These findings support the hypothesis that in cases in which the defendant is clearly negligent, circumstances exist in which stipulating negligence and offering an apologetic account will lead to reduced damage awards decisions. Results indicate that individual and corporate defendants offering justifications and refusals should first consider the reprehensibility of their actions. In a broader realm, findings demonstrate that the manner in which a jury perceives the explanation given by the defendant is dependent upon defendant characteristics and case-specific factors. ^

The boundaries of acceptance: Do expectations for the complainant's psychological injury affect legal decisions in a sexual harassment case

Research indicates that people engaged in legal decision-making use a host of biases and preconceptions to guide their decisions about whether the evidence presented to them is reasonable. However, few theories address how such expectations affect legal decision-makers. The present study attempted to determine if social judgment theory (SJT) can explain how and when legal decision-makers rely on expectations for the complainant's psychological injury in a hostile environment sexual harassment case. Two experiments provided undergraduate participants with a written summary of a hostile work environment allegation that first manipulated participants' expectations about reasonable psychological injuries (mild v. severe), and then presented them with actual severity levels of psychological injury (ranging from minimal to extreme). Experiment 1 (N = 295) hypothesized and found that participants who expected severe injuries perceived a greater range of psychological injuries to be reasonable than participants expecting mild injury. Experiment 2 ( N = 202) used similar methodology and investigated whether perceived reasonableness for the injury allegations affected legal decisions. Experiment 2 hypothesized that participants expecting severe psychological injury should render more pro-complainant decisions than participants expecting mild psychological injury. This result should be most pronounced when participants receive a moderate injury allegation, since this allegation was perceived as reasonable by participants expecting severe injury, but unreasonable by participants expecting mild injury. Consistent with SJT, participants who received a moderate injury but expected a severe injury found more liability than participants who received a moderate injury but expected a mild injury. Inconsistent with SJT, participants' expectations did not affect their compensatory damage decisions. In fact, more severe injury allegations increased damage awards regardless of participants' expectations. Although the results provide mixed support for applying SJT to legal decisions in sexual harassment cases, they emphasize the continuing role of oft-unstudied extra-legal factors (juror's expectations and psychological injury severity) on legal decisions.

Lender Liability: The Legal and Management Effects on the Hospitality Industry

With the savings and loan crisis and the tail end of a recession at hand, the '90s are bound to be a difficult decade for the financing of hospitality operations through borrowing from commercial lenders. The authors discuss one of the least known dangers associated with borrowing, lender liability. The issue is discussed from both a legal and managerial perspective.

The High Cost of Hasty Hiring

Carefully reading employment applications and checking out all references and prior-employment records is vital to hotel managers and personnel directors today. Many legal suits are the result of employees who, hired quickly because of an immediate need, commit some crime in relation to guest rooms or property.

Casino Drink Policies: Limiting Third-Party Liability

In their efforts to provide an atmosphere or hospitality to their casino customers, many operators will provide complimentary alcoholic beverage service. This practice is fraught with liability, particularly in venues outside of Nevada. Conscientious operators must take every precaution to mitigate the possibility of lawsuit.

Alcohol Server Liability Law Suits Result From Dram Shop Statutes

The country is experiencing a trend of alcohol server liability law suits resulting from dram shop statutes and common law liability, relatively recent developments in the field of tort law. The author, an expert on liquor liability law, explores the meaning of this trend for the hospitality industry.

The differential effects of *American and British trial proceedings on juror decision-making

Seven basic elements differentiate British from American trial procedures: confining attorneys to their tables; dealing with objections outside the presence of the jury; resolving disagreements between attorneys prior to objections being made; presenting the defense opening statement at the close of the prosecution case; the judge directly questions witnesses and has a wider latitude in controlling the evidence; and the judge gives a summation of all the evidence presented to the jury (Fulero & Turner, 1997). The present experiment examined the influence of these different courtroom procedures, judges' non-verbal behavior, and evidence strength on juror decision-making. Using models of persuasion to understand how the varying elements may effect juror decision-making, it was predicted that trials following American courtroom procedures would be more distracting for jurors and as such, they would be more likely to rely on the peripheral cue of the judge's expectations for trial outcome as expressed in his nonverbal behavior. In trials following British procedures jurors should be less distracted and better able to scrutinize the strength of the evidence that in turn should minimize the influence of the judge's nonverbal behavior. Two hundred forty-five participants viewed a mock civil trial in which courtroom procedure, judge's nonverbal behavior, and evidence strength were varied. Analyses suggest that courtroom procedure and evidence strength influenced the direction of participants' verdicts, but that judge's nonverbal behavior did not have a direct impact on verdict preference. Judge's nonverbal behavior appeared to influence other measures related to verdict. Participants were more confident in their verdicts when they agreed with judge's nonverbal behavior and when they viewed British courtroom procedures. Participants were more likely to return estimates of the defendant's liability that reflected judge's nonverbal behavior and a congruency with evidence strength. Participants also recalled more facts in the British conditions than in the American conditions. These findings are interpreted as indicating the importance of the impact of trial procedures and of nonverbal influence. ^

The market value implications of pension asset allocation

Pension funds have been part of the private sector since the 1850's. Defined Benefit pension plans [DB], where a company promises to make regular contributions to investment accounts held for participating employees in order to pay a promised lifelong annuity, are significant capital markets participants, amounting to 2.3 trillion dollars in 2010 (Federal Reserve Board, 2013). In 2006, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No.158 (SFAS 158), Employers' Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postemployment Plans, shifted information concerning funding status and pension asset/liability composition from disclosure in the footnotes to recognition in the financial statements. I add to the literature by being the first to examine the effect of recent pension reform during the financial crisis of 2008-09. This dissertation is comprised of three related essays. In my first essay, I investigate whether investors assign different pricing multiples to the various classes of pension assets when valuing firms. The pricing multiples on all classes of assets are significantly different from each other, but only investments in bonds and equities were value-relevant during the recent financial crisis. Consistent with investors viewing pension liabilities as liabilities of the firm, the pricing multiples on pension liabilities are significantly larger than those on non-pension liabilities. The only pension costs significantly associated with firm value are actual rate of return and interest expense. In my second essay, I investigate the role of accruals in predicting future cash flows, extending the Barth et al. (2001a) model of the accrual process. Using market value of equity as a proxy for cash flows, the results of this study suggest that aggregate accounting amounts mask how the components of earnings affect investors' ability to predict future cash flows. Disaggregating pension earnings components and accruals results in an increase in predictive power. During the 2008-2009 financial crisis, however, investors placed a greater (and negative) weight on the incremental information contained in the individual components of accruals. The inferences are robust to alternative specifications of accruals. Finally, in my third essay I investigate how investors view under-funded plans. On average, investors: view deficits arising from under-funded plans as belonging to the firm; reward firms with fully or over-funded pension plans; and encourage those funds with unfunded pension plans to become funded. Investors also encourage conservative pension asset allocations to mitigate firm risk, and smaller firms are perceived as being better able to handle the risk associated with underfunded plans. During the financial crisis of 2008-2009 underfunded status had a lower negative association with market value. In all three models, there are significant differences in pre- and post- SFAS 158 periods. These results are robust to various scenarios of the timing of the financial crisis and an alternative measure of funding.