This suit wаs brought to recover damages for alleged injuries inflicted by defendant on plaintiff in whipping him with a switch. The answer of defendant sets up that he was a teacher of a public school; that plaintiff was "one of the pupils of said school, аnd that for a violation by plaintiff of a rule of the school, in using profane language, quarreling and fighting with the other scholars of the school, he did, in order to preserve good order and discipline in the school and to promote its usefulness, chastise plaintiff with a switch, inflicting upon him reasonable and moderate punishment. Plaintiff obtained judgment for nine dollars, from which thе defendant has appealed.
On the trial plaintiff offered evidence tending to. show that the phnishment inflicted was exсessive ; that plaintiff did not use profane language to, or quarrel or fight with, the other scholars. The defendant offered evidence tending to prove the facts set up in his answer, and the following agreed statement of facts was then read tо the jury, viz,:
“ That the defendant was at the time the employed teacher of the public school at which the plaintiff was a regular daily attendant on and during the day that the acts and conduct complained of occurred, and for which the defendant chastised him; that the profane language
The court then instructed the jury that under the evidenсe and pleadings the jury must find for the plaintiff, and refused to give several instructions asked by the defendant, to the effect that рlaintiff, while in attendance as a scholar, was under the control of defendant as teacher, and that defendant ha$ a right to punish him for an infraction of the rule put in evidence in the agreed statement of facts, and that the verdict of ' thе jury j should be for defendant unless they believed that the I punishment inflicted was unreasonable or excessive.
It is this action of the court which is complained of as error, and we are of the opinion that the complaint is well founded. While it is prоvided in section 7045, Revised Statutes, that “the board shall have power tot' make all needful rules and regulations for the govеrn-1 ment of the school in their district,” if they failed to do so, the right of the teacher employed to conduct the schoоl to adopt reasonable rules to promote good order and discipline, arises out of the very nature of his еmployment, and the only question worthy of consideration ! which this record presents is, was the rule which forbade the use of рrofane language, quarreling and fighting among the scholars, either at school or on their way home, reasonable and promotive of good order and
In the case of Dritt v. Snodgrass,
The effects of the scholars using to and with each •other obscene and profane language, quarreling and fighting among themselves on the way to their homes, would neсessarily be felt' in the school room, engender hostile feelings between scholars, arraying one against the other, аs well as the parents of each, and destroying that harmony and good will which should always exist among the scholars who arе daily brought in contact with-eaeh other in the school room.
For the error committed in giving the plaintiff the fast and second instructions, and refusing those asked by the defendant, numbered two, three, four, five and seven, the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.