Facts

Plaintiff M.B. was a 14-year-old student at Chico High School enrolled in a welding shop class taught by defendant Ronnie Cockrell. Plaintiff filed suit against the Chico Unified School District and four classmates, claiming negligent supervision.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that it had been a clean-up day and Cockrell had assigned students to various clean-up tasks. One witness testified that Cockrell then left through the front door, leaving the students unattended. After sweeping for a few minutes in the shop, plaintiff and his friend went outside and swept a covered patio area for the remainder of the 55-minute class. They did not see Cockrell or any other adult until at least 40 minutes later.

Near the end of the class period, two or three students then picked plaintiff up and started to put him in the sand blasting cabinet (measuring about 48"x24"x24"). Plaintiff thought it was a joke, but then started yelling and struggling. He was forced into the sand blasting cabinet. One student sand blasted plaintiff, damaging his pants and causing an abrasion on his leg. One student pushed plaintiff's head into the air-tight sand blasting cabinet and shut the door, and then walked away laughing. Plaintiff thought he was going to die, and urinated himself.

Plaintiff's friend opened the door of the sand blasting cabinet and let him out. Plaintiff was sobbing and shaking. Plaintiff looked for Cockrell in the shop and classroom, but could not find him anywhere. As plaintiff was writing Cockrell a note, he entered through the front door of the classroom. It was undisputed that Cockrell walked through the patio area only once about halfway through the 55 minute class period. There was no other evidence that he had supervised the patio area at all during the class period.

Plaintiff claimed the school district and Cockrell had a duty to use reasonable care to protect plaintiff from harm. Cockrell breached this duty by not adequately supervising the class and plaintiff. Plaintiff's educational expert testified that a reasonable teacher randomly "cycles" the classroom every few minutes, putting eyes on each student and letting each student know that they are being watched. If students know that the teacher can be watching at any time, they are less prone to horseplay. It is undisputed that Cockrell walked through the outside patio only once during the 55 minute class period. It was undisputed that the assailant students were loud and rowdy. Witness estimated the length of the assault varied from about 30 seconds to as long as 10 minutes. Plaintiff's educational expert testified that under the circumstances, Cockrell had breached the standard of care.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants contended that plaintiff was in the cabinet with the door closed for 2 to 5 seconds, and had no physical injuries. The only physical injury was a red spot on plaintiff's knee that required no medical attention.

Defendants also claimed the teacher made timely checks of all areas of the shop.

Settlement Discussions

According to plaintiff, Plaintiff demanded $49,999. Defendants offered $5,000, and there was no firm settlement offer for $15,000. According to defense, plaintiff demanded at least $50,000 from the school district, and the school district was willing to pay no more than $15,000.

Specials in Evidence

$2,400

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed he sustained an abrasion on his leg. He also claimed he had nightmares and urinated his bed at night for months. Plaintiff's psychologist testified that plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress, including more likely than not, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and that he may be particularly susceptible to triggering events in the future.

Result

Defense as to school district. Plaintiff settled with two of the four students for a total of $11,250 and dismissed the other two.

Other Information

EXPERT TESTIMONY: Plaintiff's expert stated constant supervision of all students is impossible and is not required. According to plaintiff, testimony from plaintiff's mother that payment for medical care had been demanded, medical bills had been paid, and those payments accepted as payment in full, was sufficient to establish that billed amounts were reasonable. The court rejected plaintiff's argument that counseling was necessary because it had been suggested to plaintiff's mother by his pediatrician. Absent such expert medical testimony, plaintiff medical specials were stricken. FILING DATE: March 4, 2013.

Deliberation

1.5 hours

Poll

12-0

Length

five days