Horton v. Bienville Parish School Board

4 La. App. 123, 1926 La. App. LEXIS 367
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 11, 1926
DocketNo. 2073
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 4 La. App. 123 (Horton v. Bienville Parish School Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Horton v. Bienville Parish School Board, 4 La. App. 123, 1926 La. App. LEXIS 367 (La. Ct. App. 1926).

Opinion

STATEMENT

WEBB, J.

In this action the plaintiffs, representing their minor child, James B. Horton, and for his use and benefit, seek to recover judgment for damages against the Bienville Parish School Board for injuries sustained by the child, while being transported in a hack from the public school, which he was attending, to his home.

They allege that the driver of the hack was • the agent and employee of defendant, and the injury received by the child was the result of an accident caused by the negligence of the driver.

An exception of no cause of action being filed by the defendant, it was sustained and the suit dismissed.

Plaintiffs appeal.

OPINION

School boards are merely agencies of the state for the administration of the system of public education, and. are not liable in damages for the injuries caused by the negligence of their officers, agents and employees. (Ruling Case Law, Schools, Vol. 24, Sec. 7 and 60. Also Sherman vs. Parish of Vermilion, 51 La. Ann. 880, 25 South. 538; Fisher Land & Investment Co. vs. Bordelon, 52 La. Ann. 429, 27 South. 59.)

While Act No. 100 of 1922, which in the main follows prior laws, gives to school boards great powers of administration, the powers granted nevertheless relate to the one object of public education, and we would not be warranted in reading into the statute by implication a provision rendering the school board liable for the negligence of its employees, unless such necessarily implied for other provisions of the statute, or laws relating -to the same subject.

We do not think that the provision which authorizes the school boards, in certain instances, to provide for transporting school children to and from the school, indicates that it was the intention of the Legislature to make such boards liable for the negligence of persons employed by them to drive the conveyances in which the children may be transported.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Stephens v. Natchitoches Parish School Board
115 So. 2d 793 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1959)
Stephens v. Natchitoches Parish School Board
96 So. 2d 396 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1957)
Whitfield v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board
23 So. 2d 708 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1945)
Wallace v. Laurel County Board of Education
153 S.W.2d 915 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1941)
Kroncke v. Caddo Parish School Board
183 So. 86 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1938)
Perkins v. Trask
23 P.2d 982 (Montana Supreme Court, 1933)
Rankin v. School District No. 9
23 P.2d 132 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 La. App. 123, 1926 La. App. LEXIS 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-bienville-parish-school-board-lactapp-1926.