mfety in the chemical laboratory
edited by MALCOLM M. RENFREW University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 83843
Chemistry Laboratory Litigations Review and Implications N o r b e r t 1.K u r n a t h Cuyahoga Community College. Parma, Ohio 44130 Marllyn C. Kurnath Cleveland Board of Education, Member of NOLPE
Now more than ever, there is a need for chemistry faculty to he aware of the legal implications of liability relative to the chemistry laboratory. The increasing number of litigations in the field of education, in general, should forewarn instructors of their responsibilities in experimental situations. Teachers must be made aware of the serious possible consequences of a casual treatment of safety procedures. Some examples of lahoratory liability have been discussed in the context of academic and industrial accidents (1) and in relationship with several types of instructional liability (2). In this paper, legal terminology relative t o teacher liability will be defined, a chronological sequence of litigations involving laboratory situations will be presented, and guidelines far avoiding malfeasance and nonfeasance in the laboratory will be formulated. Legal Liability Defined In the majority of states, the fundamental rule of teacher liability dictates that when teachers have mntrol and custody of students they may he found liable for injuries to pupils if they act, or neglect to act, and directly and proximately cause injuries. Instructors have a duty of care whieh is defined as the amount of care any reasonably prudent individual would provide in a similar situation. If teachers do not exercise this duty of cire, they may be found negligent. The amount of care which an instructor will be expected t o use is determined by the danger involved and the age of the student. The greatest care is expected of chemistry laboratory instructors because they expose students to potentially dangerous chemicals and possibly hazardous experiments (3). The following statements outline conditions when an instructor is usually not held totally liable, depending upon the age and maturity of the pupil: 1. I t is found that the student has engaged in contribntorynegligence, which means that the injured person has failed to a d far his own safety. 2. The accident was unavoidable and unforseeable. 3. A third party intervened and became
the proximate cause of an injury. 4. The student willingly assumed the risk, implying that he or she had the knawledge of the danger involved. 5. In some states, teachers might be included in the sovereign immunity clauses, but for the most part, this does not apply (4).
A Review of Court Cases The following cases are presented in chronological sequence and include only those which have reached the courts and could not be settled out of litigation. The absence of recent dates d w s not refled the sharp rise in the number of litigations and threatened suits. Also it is important to know that the decisions of judges tend to draw on the tested opinions rendered in earlier cases. Occasionally there is a landmark decision which rules against a defendant who relies on his observing the practices in common use rather than on those dictated by changing regulations. Teachers in these times cannot expect to avoid a suit after an accident, but proper care in advance surely will influence the outcome. The first case considered is Hamburger o. Cornell University (5). Students were involved in the chemical laboratory in performing two expe~imentsfor the class period. The first experiment involved the use of potassium chlorate and strontium nitrate while the second experiment included the use of mercuric sulfide and calcium oxide. Louise Hamburger observed the fint experiment but did not take Dart in it. All chemicals used in the rxprrlmcnts were h u g h t from manufacturers with labels a f f i r d to rhc bottles. A sr*,remom clerk dispensed thesechemicals I,, a secondary storeroom where aderk, who was not a chemist, was in charge. A committee of instructors determined what chemicals were to be used each day in classes and transferred these chemicals to smaller containers with labels affixed. These containers were then plared on supplv tables in the laborauwv. The plaintiff went ro a supply tnhle and ohuintd what rhr rallpd calcium oxide. Her inrtrurtor claimed that she accidently must have taken ~~~
~
~
~~~~~~~
~~~
~
~
Volume 58
the potassium chlorate, since both were white. The student then went to the storeroom window and obtained the mercuric sulfide, mixed the chemicals,and with the aid of an instructor, heated them. An explosion occurred which caused her t o lose the vision of one eye. The professor in charge took all chemicals from her desk, had themanalyzed, and found mercuric sulfide and potassium chlorate instead of the calcium oxide. The student claimed that she did not receive mercuric sulfide a t the window, but some other chemical which caused the explosion. The judgment held that the University could not be held liable for any injuries or damages to students because of the doctrine of charitable immunity. I t was held that no negligence had been shown in the selection of stockroom personnel, since their main function was merely to act as clerks and hand to the students the chemicals selected by the teacher. The presence of the potassium cblorate appeared to be the cause of the eaplosion. I t was not shown that the bottles of chemicals were mislabeled end so the judgment was held to be in favor of the University and its employees. In Gregory u. Board of Education ( 6 ) ,a student had conducted an unauthorized ex~ e r i m e nwhich t was no o a t of anv course of btudy.'l'heappellatr C&I rulpd &at failure ro formally adupt a chemistry a u m e syllabus did not make a Board of Education liable for damages. Thisdid not mean that thestudent did not have other grounds to sue. The case of Damgarrd u. Oakland High School (7) reached the Supreme Court of California. Rudolph Damgaard, a minor, aged seventeen, was enrolled in the John C. Fremont High School beginning chemistry course. An experiment was being conducted by the teacher involving explosive gases. The students were required to handle the chemicals and the apparatus, and i t was alleged that no warning was given by the teacher as to the dangerous elements of the experiment. An exolosion occurred which caused ereat pain 1 0 t h ~p l a i n t i i t , n n d n l ~ o c a ~ ~ itehd~ d e strumon and rrmowl bvnmpurctiun, rlihi, right eye. It unr chnrred that rhe Hoard and ~
~
(Continued on page A3301 Number 11
November 1981
A329
its instructors did not exercise due care nor take proprr prrcautions. I t was fuund that thr rxplosion would not haw normally happened unless eithrr the trst tubrs w r r improperly cleaned, the materials were impure, or heat was nor correctly isrd. I t was nut clrar whwh on? ot these items had caused the pxrrlm~an.This Smre Suureme (hurt ruled that pupils in a heginning chemistry course could not know in advance the dancers of the experiment. Although i t was nut shww uhat had a
