Rubek v. BarnhartRubek v. Barnhart
Plаintiffs/appellants are five mothers or foster mothers acting as guardians ad litem for six children attending public school in White River, South Dakota. All six children were at one time students of Kathy McGeehon, a second-grade teacher in the White River School District. Plaintiffs filed suit in district court under the provisions of
Thе case was tried before a jury. At the close of plaintiffs’ case, the district court judge granted defendants’ mоtion for a directed verdict in favor of Barnhart and Spelts on the
On appeal plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in granting directed verdicts in favor of Barnhart and Spelts on the
I.
The evidence produced at trial revealed that for the ostensible purpose of maintaining discipline and control in her classroom, Kathy McGeehon slapped and kicked several of her sеcond-grade students, called them derogatory names and hit them with a wooden paddle. Although parents cоmplained on several occasions to either Principal Spelts or Superintendent Barnhart, no decisive action was taken to prevent McGeehon’s further use of corporal punishment until just prior to the initiation of this lawsuit at which time McGeehon was requested to resign her teaching position in the White River School District. Appellants argue that Barnhart and Spelts’ failure to intervene and prevent McGeehon’s excessive and unreasonable use of corporal punishment violated their substantive due process rights under
II.
Appellants correctly assert that a
Within this framework, appellants argue that they were deprived of their substantive due process rights by Principal Spelts and Superintendent Barnhart’s knowing or reckless failure to prevent McGeehon’s unreasonable use of corporal punishment in
On the facts of this case, appellants’ only conceivable basis for alleging a constitutional violation against Barnhart and Spelts must be derived from the punishment they received at the hand of their teacher, Kathy McGeehon. This argument is without merit, however, in light of the jury verdict in favor of McGeehon on the
Appellants in the instant case do not appeal the trial court’s instructions or the jury’s findings regarding the liability of Kathy McGeehon under
III.
For the above stated reasons, we hold the district court did not err in directing verdicts in favor of Barnhart and Spelts. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.