Heritage v. Dodge

9 A. 722, 64 N.H. 297
Supreme Court of New Hampshire·Decided December 5, 1886·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Smith, J.

The instructions requested made the defendant liable, without regard to the fact whether he exercised reasonable judgment and discretion in determining whether the plaintiff was guilty of intentional misconduct as a scholar. The law clothes the *299 teacher, as it does the parent in whose place he stands, with power to enforce discipline by the imposition of reasonable corporal punishment. 1 Blk. Com. 453; 2 Kent Com. 205; Reeve Dom. Rel. 288, 289, 375. He is not required to be infallible in his judgment. He is the judge to determine when and to what extent correction is necessary; and like all others clothed with a discretion, he cannot be made personally responsible for error in judgment when he has acted in good faith and without malice. Cooley Const. Lim. 341; Cooley Torts 171, 172, 288; Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt. 114; State v. Pendergrass, 2 Dev. & Bat. 365; Fitzgerald v. North cote, 4 F. & F. 656; Reeve Dom. Rel. 288.

The instructions were correct, and there was no error in the refusal to give those requested.

Exceptions overruled.

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Heritage v. Dodge, 9 A. 722, 64 N.H. 297 (N.H. 1886).

9 A. 722 (Heritage v. Dodge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Ball
303 N.E.2d 516 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1973)
People v. Curtiss
116 Cal. App. 771 (Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California, 1931)
Wilbur v. Berry
51 A. 898 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1902)