Li will attempt to prove she was the victim of intentional torts by her teacher Mr. Billups. At school, Li was placed in a cage for the day to reenact how Americans reacted to the events of Pearl Harbor. Li will accuse Mr. Billups of intentional infliction of emotional distress and false imprisonment. Being placed in a cage for the day will be considered an unreasonable amount of time, and being put in the cage with the other foreign born students from her class will show emotional distress.
Li will attempt to prove the four elements of negligence against Mr. Billups for his previously stated actions. The elements required are duty of care, failure to protect from harm, cause of the harm, and damages, which in this case are psychological and physical. After review of the actions taken by Mr. Billups, it seems Li will be able to show the four elements required for negligence. Li’s Parents
Li’s parents will attempt to attach liability to the school district which employs Mr. Billups, claiming respondeat superior. Li’s parents will claim that Mr. Billups’ inappropriate and harmful actions were performed within the course and scope of his employment at the school, therefore leaving the district which employs him partially responsible or at fault. As Mr. Billups’ employer, the school district had every opportunity to put an end to the gross reenactments of events in American history which have taken place in Mr. Billups’ class even before the most recent incident involving Li. In addition, scienter can be applied by Li’s parents because at the very least, the principal of the school should have known about Mr. Billups’ demeaning antics. Mr. Billups
Mr. Billups will attempt to use tort defenses including assumption of risk, superseding/intervening cause, and contributory negligence. By sending their child to school, Li’s parents assumed the risk of their child participating in educational activities in history class. The school district is partially to blame as well because they must have heard/known about the practices Mr. Billups uses to teach his students. In addition, Li and the other foreign students contributed to their own negligence by attending Mr. Billups class and agreeing to be put in a cage in class.
Li’s parents, Li herself, and the school district all should have known of the reenactments performed in Mr. Billups class, proving scienter.
The school district which employs Mr. Billups will claim the frolic and detour defense to respondeat superior. Their claim will be that Mr. Billups was acting outside the rules and regulations set forth by the district, and that they could not have possibly seen ahead of time the inappropriate actions Mr. Billups performed in his classroom. Conclusion: The court will use the reasonable person test and likely find for Li and her parents.