School liability for student injuries

Summer is drawing to close and school is back in session. As our students make their way back to the classroom, it's an appropriate time to review a topic that we all hope to never confront: school liability for student injuries.

School liability is a complicated issue, in part because whether liability attaches depends largely on the time and physical location of the student's injury. A case can yield a vastly different result if the injury occurred on the playground at recess, or on the school bus during a field trip.

Injuries on School Property

Schools have a 'special relationship' with their students. Parents entrust their children to school officials ("in loco parentis"), and schools must use reasonable measures to protect students from foreseeable injuries at the hands of third parties acting negligently or intentionally. C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861. This special relationship requires schools to supervise the conduct of children on school grounds during school sessions, school activities, recesses and lunch periods. Bartell v. Palos Verdes Peninsula School Dist. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 492.

A recent case highlights the significance of the timing of the student's injuries. In Achay v. Huntington Beach Union High School Dist. (2022), the plaintiff was attacked on her high school campus after track and field practice ended. She left the campus to get coffee; returned to get her books from her locker, then was attacked by a former student trespassing on the property. The Court noted that since the attack occurred while she was on campus during a school-related function - athletic practice - the school owed her a duty of reasonable care to protect her from the attack.

On the other hand, the special relationship between a school and its students does not apply to injuries on campus after school hours. Bartell v. Palos Verdes Peninsula School District (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 492. In Bartell, a 12-year-old boy snuck onto a school campus after hours. Tragically, he was killed while playing on the playground. The Court ruled that the special relationship leading to the duty to supervise the child was limited to school-related or encouraged functions and to activities taking place during school hours.

Injuries Off Campus

Student injuries that occur off campus are treated differently. Education Code § 44808 is instructive. It reads:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no school district, city or county board of education, county superintendent of schools, or any officer or employee of such district or board shall be responsible or in any way liable for the conduct or safety of any pupil of the public schools at any time when such pupil is not on school property, unless such district, board, or person has undertaken to provide transportation for such pupil to and from the school premises, has undertaken a school-sponsored activity off the premises of such school, has otherwise specifically assumed such responsibility or liability or has failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.

In the event of such a specific undertaking, the district, board, or person shall be liable or responsible for the conduct or safety of any pupil only while such pupil is or should be under the immediate and direct supervision of an employee of such district or board."

The Legislative history to Section 44808 shows that the Legislature was primarily concerned with limiting a school's liability for injuries to students either before or after school hours while children were going to or coming home from school. (Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist., (1978) 22 Cal.3d 508.) Generally, a school district has no responsibility to ensure that children travel safely to and from school unless the school provides the transportation. Courts have also applied Section 44808 to shield schools from liability for student injuries outside school property absent a specific undertaking by the school district or direct supervision by a district employee. Leroy v. Yarboi (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 737.

However, if a student is injured off school property during school hours, liability may attach. Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist., (1978) 22 Cal.3d 508. In Hoyem, a ten-year-old student ditched class, snuck off the campus, and was hit by a motorcycle while walking home. His parents sued, arguing that the school was negligent in allowing their son to wander off the campus. The Court ruled that the school's duty to supervise the student did not end when the boy left the premises, and that school officials have a duty to supervise students at all times while school is in session.

Injuries in the Carpool Line

What happens when students are dismissed and an injury occurs off campus while the student is waiting to be picked up? The answer can be tricky. In Guerrero v. South Bay Union School Dist. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 262, a first-grade student named Norma was dismissed from school. Instead of waiting at the corner like she usually did, Norma crossed the street and was hit by a car. Norma's parents sued the school, arguing that the school failed to supervise Norma when school ended and should have had procedures in place to prevent the tragedy. The Court ruled that, absent supervision or direction from a school employee, the school's duty to Norma ended when school did. The outcome could be different when a school official is directing or assisting students in the carpool line.

Field Trips

An interesting exception to the special relationship is found in Education Code 35330(d). The statute, which provides for "field trip immunity," reads:

"All persons making the field trip or excursion shall be deemed to have waived all claims against the district, a charter school, or the State of California for injury, accident, illness, or death occurring during or by reason of the field trip or excursion. All adults taking out-of-state field trips or excursions and all parents or guardians of pupils taking out-of-state field trips or excursions shall sign a statement waiving all claims."

The rationale behind this immunity is to encourage the use of field trips as an important part of enhancing the educational process. Sanchez v. San Diego County Office of Education, (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1580. But it can lead to questionable outcomes. In Sanchez, the school district owned a campground called Camp Fox. Students completing 5th grade would spend five days at Camp Fox to prepare for middle school. One student, Virginia Sanchez, suffered an asthma attack and died while at Camp Fox. The Court ruled that field trip immunity shielded the district from liability because attendance at the camp was considered a 5-day field trip. Sanchez demonstrates how courts often take a broad view of field trip immunity.

Conclusion

School liability for student injuries is complicated. Schools owe a special relationship to their students, but the special relationship often disappears when students leave campus. These cases are highly nuanced and incredibly fact specific. The timing and location of the injury are important issues to explore. Practitioners should also remember that public schools are government entities. As such, all claims notice requirements must be followed.

Schools are places of education and growth - nobody wants to sue a school. But when it needs to be done, the above discussion can be a starting point for exploring whether liability exists.