recognizing a duty of supervision where an eighth-grade special education student was sexually assaulted by another student in the school bathroom before classes began
How later courts described this case
- recognizing a duty of supervision where an eighth-grade special education student was sexually assaulted by another student in the school bathroom before classes began
- holding school district had a duty to 7 protect a student from being sexually assaulted by another student
- "[T]hat a particular act ... in a school bathroom may have been unforeseeable does not automatically exonerate the District from the consequences of allowing students ... unrestricted access ... with wholly inadequate supervision."
- discussing evidence of school district before- 27 school supervision policy
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HARRIS, Acting P. J., Concurring.
I concur fully in Justice Wiseman’s opinion. I write separately to make further comments as to the existence of the school district’s duty toward the minor victim in this case. First, I note that Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666 [ 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137 , 863 P.2d 207 ] and Sharon P. v. Arman, Ltd. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1181 [ 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 35 , 989 P.2d 121 ] address premises liability and are inapplicable to the instant case given the special relationship that exists between a school district and its students.
Second, in my view, even if Romero v. Superior Court (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1068 [ 107 Cal.Rptr.2d 801 ] was extended to this type of situation, the school district herein would still have a duty toward the minor victim given its actual knowledge of the pertinent factual circumstances in this case. Romero held the parents therein had no legal duty to the victim because they had no actual knowledge of the minor’s assaultive tendencies or even his school disciplinary record, which included “a long history of misconduct, including sexual harassment of female students, fighting and other misbehavior that resulted in numerous detentions and suspensions; as well as evidence that [the minor] had been arrested and charged with vandalism.” (Id. at p. 1088.) In contrast to Romero , however, the school district was well aware of Chris’s disciplinary record and his assaultive propensities, his prior interactions with the victim, the victim’s repeated complaints about him, and their presence together on campus in the absence of supervision, and it could be held liable for failing to provide that supervision.