Rose vs Nashua Board of Education (1982)

General Rule of Law: Transportation Committee finds that the violations of Rules and

Regulations continue to be detrimental to the safety of persons and property on the bus route,

they may after giving written notice to the parents of the bus riders on the route, without further

vote of the Board of Education, suspend the bus route temporarily commencing not earlier than

five calendar days from the date of notice to the parents. A bus may not be temporarily

suspended for more than five days without a vote of the full Board of Education.

Procedure Summary:

Plaintiffs: Thomas Rose (P), and other resident taxpayers and parents of children

attending public school in Hillsborough County, N.H. school district

Defendant: Board of Education (D), Nashua Board of Education, School District,

Hillsborough County, New Hampshire

State Trial Court Decision: Held for Board of Education (D)

State Court of Appeals Decision: Affirmed

Facts: The Nashua Board of Education provides transportation by bus to its schools for all

elementary students who reside one mile or more from their respective schools, and for all

secondary students who reside two miles or more from their respective schools. Complaints

from drivers of acts of vandalism and the throwing of objects, which the drivers perceived

impinged upon the safety of their operation of the school buses. In December 1978, a proposal

was made to the Board whereby a bus route might be temporarily suspended for disciplinary

purposes. The bus drivers appeared before the Board and outlined disciplinary problems of

“disrespect for driver, excessive noise, throwing of objects such as pencils or acorns, and for

some of the buses, cutting of the seats.” A suspension policy was recommended and was
discussed and approved on October 29, 1979. Interested parents appeared before meetings of the

transportation committee of the Board in September and October of 1980. Suggestions of

suspension of routes, seat assignments, photo ID passes, in-bus monitors, and/or cameras.

Issue: Is student safety a priority on all bus routes?

Holding and Decision: (Memorandum Opinion) Yes. On January 5,1981, the Board adopted a

detailed “transportation handbook,” setting forth the rules and regulations governing the conduct

of students on school buses. In order for proper disciplinary actions, a report of the violation

should be reported to the Board of Education. The transportation committee was to meet and

consider the ruling and make a decision. Student safety and accountability become a priority

while bus drivers could focus on their routes. No constitutional rights of plaintiffs have been

infringed by the actions of the defendants, we consider that no mandate should issue from this

court. Judgment is accordingly ordered for the defendants on all counts of the complaint.

Affirmed.

Comment: The plaintiffs herein requires the Court to consider the factors of significance threat

of irreparable harm to plaintiffs if not granted and the balance between such harm and injury.

Also, the probability of success on the merits and the public interest. It is clear that the plaintiffs

harm would be minimal compared to the danger to safe operation of school buses and the

property damage entailed if the bus suspension policy were to be enjoined.

This Legal Brief is from the following resource:

Reference
Rose v. Nashua BD. Of ED. (n.d.). Leagle. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from
https://www.leagle.com/decision/19811872506fsupp136611704