ipl-logo

Eisel V Board Of Education Case Study

503 Words3 Pages

Case Facts In November of 1988, Nicole, a 13-year-old girl consummated a murder-suicide pact with a friend in Maryland. Nicole’s counselor was made aware of her suicidal thoughts and discussed it with her. However, Nicole denied making statements about intending to commit suicide and the counselor failed to notify administration or Nicole’s parents. In March of 1989, the father of the girl and plaintiff in this case, Stephen Eisel, brought negligence charges against the Board of Education of Montgomery County, the Superintendent of Schools of Montgomery, the Sligo Middle School Principal, and Dorothy Jones, the School Counselor. The plaintiff later amended his complaint to include a second school counselor, Diedre Morgan after learning she was apprised of his daughter’s intent to commit suicide as well. The defendants filed a motion for dismissal on summary judgement and won. The plaintiff appealed the decision in 1991 arguing that he should have been notified by the counselors and given opportunity to intervene (Eisel v Board of Education of Montgomery County, 1991). Case Issue In order to determine liability, the courts needed to decide if the events that unfolded in this case could be attributed to negligence on the part of the …show more content…

It was determined that Nicole’s death was foreseeable and the counselors failed to report their knowledge of her intent appropriately per school policy. Although, the counselor proactively confronted Nicole with the information, she should have proceeded with notifying administration and the teen’s parents. Exercising confidentiality in this case over the duty to prevent a suicide violated the school policy. Ultimately, it was determined that the foreseeability of harm instills a duty for counselors to report suicide threats (Eisel v Board of Education of Montgomery County,

Open Document