A school-teacher may enforce discipline by the imposition of reasonable corporal punishment. He may determine when and to what extent punishment is necessary; and he is not liable for error in judgment when he has acted in good faith and without malice.
SMITH, J.
The instructions requested made the defendant liable, without regard to the fact whether he exercised reasonable judgment and discretion in determining whether the plaintiff was guilty of intentional misconduct as a scholar. The law clothes the teacher, as it does the parent in whose place he stands, with power to enforce discipline by the imposition of reasonable corporal punishment. 1 Blk. Com. 453; 2 Kent Com. 205; Reeve Dom. Rel. 288, 289, 375. He is not required to be infallible in his judgment. He is the judge to determine when and to what extent correction is necessary; and like all others clothed with a discretion, he cannot be made personally responsible for error in judgment when he has acted in good faith and without malice. Cooley Const. Lim. 341; Cooley Torts 171, 172, 288; Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt. 114; State v. Pendergrass, 2 Dev. Bat. 365; Fitzgerald v. Northcote, 4 F. F. 656; Reeve Dom. Rel. 288.
The instructions were correct, and there was no error in the refusal to give those requested.
Exceptions overruled.
CLARK, J., did not sit: the others concurred.