Final answer:
A teacher is most likely to be held liable in scenario C, where they ignore students playfully wrestling, resulting in one student breaking a wrist. The teacher’s inaction and failure to prevent foreseeable harm highlights negligence in duty of care.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the scenario where a teacher is most likely to be held liable, option C stands out. In this case, the teacher ignores two students who begin to wrestle playfully, and one of them breaks a wrist. Given the circumstances, the teacher’s inaction in the face of a situation that could lead to and in fact did lead to injury could be deemed negligent. This is because teachers have a duty of care to their students, which includes the prevention of foreseeable harm when possible.
Conversely, in the other scenarios, the teacher has either taken action to prevent harm (option A) or could not have reasonably foreseen the harm (options B and D). Option B, where the student was hurt performing a dance move, was unexpected and spontaneous, and option D involved a student acting out in an emotional state, which would be difficult to predict and thus mitigate.
The concept that schools and teachers must maintain a safe environment and may be held liable if they fail to do so is why they are expected to act when they see potential dangers, to prevent harm to their students.