Story Case

Arthur McLain, an infant fourteen years of age, was severely tho not permanently, punished by Ethel Forbes, his school teacher, for his delinquency and deportment in the classroom. The chastisement consisted of the use of a raw-hide about one-half an inch in diameter, administered across the back. After the child returned home, the parents learned of the treatment, and demanded damages of the teacher for action. In a Court proceeding, the teacher defended on the ground that she was standing in the place of the parents at the time and had the right to administer punishment under the circumstances. Is this a good defense?

Ruling Court Case. Fortinberry Vs. Holmes, Volume 89 Mississippi Reports, Page 373; Volume 42 Southern Reporter, Page 799

In this case it appears that Rose Fortinberry left his infant daughter with the defendant, Marshall Holmes, to be supported, educated, cared for, and treated as his own child.

On one occasion the defendant punished the child for some misconduct. This was an action brought by the child's parent for damages caused by the alleged wrongful punishment.

Decision: It is conceded and is plainly the law, that if Holmes stood in loco parentis (in the place of the parents) there could be no civil action by the child. It is also conceded, as is clear from this record, that he was in that relation unless it was changed by the testimony of the parent to the effect that she had given instructions that the daughter was not to be whipped. This does not alter the relation or change the status of the child, who was to be taken and treated as one of the children of the family.

So it was held that the plaintiff could not recover.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

In order that the power of control over minor children may be efficiently exercised, parents are given the right and power to punish and chastise, in a reasonable manner, their children because of their misconduct. This is a discretionary right with the parents and may be exercised by either one. In case either abuses the right, by inflicting punishment of a cruel and unreasonable kind, such parent may be held criminally liable.

In case a parent sees fit, he may delegate to another, the power and right to punish and chastise his children. The person to whom this power is given, stands in the same relation so far as the right of punishment is concerned, as the parent to the child.

A person who assumes the duties and responsibilities over a child has the right to inflict moderate punishment. He may do this even though it appears that the parent or parents of the child expressly forbade the child being punished.

In the Story Case, the teacher had the control of the child during school hours and during this time stood in the place of the parent. Therefore, for the purpose of disciplining the child, the teacher could punish him, and for this she is not liable unless she acted in bad faith or the punishment was cruel and unreasonable.