Liability of a Public Entity

Government Code § 815.6 provides that “Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the public entity is liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty.”

“[T]he government may be liable when (1) a mandatory duty is imposed by enactment, (2) the duty was designed to protect against the kind of injury allegedly suffered, and (3) breach of the duty proximately caused injury.” (State Dep't of State Hosps. v. Superior Court (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 339, 348; see also Guzman v. County of Monterey (2009) 46 Cal.4th 887, 898; Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 932.)

“[A]pplication of section 815.6 requires that the enactment at issue be obligatory, rather than merely discretionary or permissive, in its directions to the public entity; it must require, rather than merely authorize or permit, that a particular action be taken or not taken.” (Haggis v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 490, 498.) An enactment does not create a mandatory duty if it merely recites legislative goals or policies that must be implemented through a public agency’s exercise of discretion. (County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 627, 639; Wilson v. County of San Diego (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 974, 980.) The general requirement for teachers to supervise students does not create a mandatory duty. “By its terms, Education Code section 44807 requires only ‘teacher[s]’ to hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct; it does not purport to impose a mandatory duty more broadly on any public entity.” (Hoff v. Vacaville Unified Sch. Dist. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 925, 939.)

Duties and Liabilities of a School to Supervise Conduct of Child Students

General Duty

California law has long imposed on school authorities a duty to "supervise at all times the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary to their protection.” (Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 741, 747.)

Duties and Liability under Education Code § 44807

No General Mandatory Duty for Public Entity Liability

Education § 44807 merely imposes a discretionary duty to supervise the conduct of pupils. (Hoff vs. Vacaville Unified School District (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 925, 939 (“Education Code § 44807 requires only teachers to hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct; it does not purport to impose a mandatory duty more broadly on any public entity.”).) Nothing in Education Code §44807 requires that any specific actions or mandatory acts be taken or not taken in the furtherance of the duty to supervise. There are no guidelines, mechanisms, or procedures for creating a mandatory duty under § 44807.

In Hoff the trial court granted a judgment of nonsuit for a school district. The plaintiff in Hoff suffered injuries when hit by a car driven by a student exiting from an unsupervised overflow parking lot of high school. The plaintiff in Hoff argued that the school district had a general duty to supervise the students under § 44807. The California Supreme Court in Hoff upheld the trial court’s decision, holding the statute required teachers to hold students accountable for their conduct, but did not impose liability on the public entity. (Id.)

Duty to Supervise

Outside of Hoff vs. Vacaville Unified School District, there is caselaw that involves finding a duty when a school fails to supervise its students and an injury occurs. "We assume that the purpose of the law requiring supervision of pupils on the playgrounds and on the school property during school hours is to regulate their conduct so as to prevent disorderly and dangerous practices which are likely to result in physical injury to immature scholars under their custody." (Rodrigues v. San Jose Unified School Dist. (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 842, 846; see also Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 741, 747 (Citing prior version of the statute).)

In Jennifer C. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, a student with special needs brought action against school district for negligent supervision and maintaining a dangerous condition of public property, after being sexually assaulted by another "special needs" student. (Jennifer C. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1320.) Citing Education Code § 44807, the court in J.H. v. Los Angeles Unified remanded the case back to the trial court to evaluate the facts in light of the legal principle that the LA Unified School District had a duty to supervise an after school program where there had been sexual misconduct among students. (Id. at 148.)

Furthermore, in Lucas v. Fresno Unified School District, the court stated: "This section [Education Code section 44807] has been cited as imposing upon a school district a duty to supervise pupils on school grounds: While school districts and their employees have never been considered insurers of the physical safety of students, California law has long imposed on school authorities a duty to 'supervise at all times the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary to their protection. Either a total lack of supervision [citation] or ineffective supervision may constitute a lack of ordinary care on the part of those responsible for student supervision. Under section 815.2, subdivision (a) of the Government Code, a school district is vicariously liable for injuries proximately caused by such negligence." (Lucas v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 866, 871-872 (internal citations omitted).)

Pleadings

Particularity

“[I]n California all government tort liability is dependent on the existence of an authorizing statute or ‘enactment’, and to state a cause of action every fact essential to the existence of statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity, including the existence of a statutory duty.” (Searcy v. Hemet Unified School Dist. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 792, 802.)

Additional Government Code Requirements

Government Code § 945.4 requires, as a prerequisite to maintenance of an action against a public entity for damages arising out of an alleged tort, the timely filing of a claim and its rejection. Government Code Section 910 provides that the claim must include a general description of the injuries and the names of the public employees who caused them. (Fall River Joint Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 431, 434.)

“When a civil action is brought following denial of a government tort claim ‘the written claim must correspond with the facts alleged in the complaint; even if the claim were timely, the complaint is vulnerable to a demurrer if it alleges a factual basis for recovery which is not fairly reflected in the written claim.’” (Blair v. Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 221, 223-224 (internal citation omitted).)

"‘If a plaintiff relies on more than one theory of recovery against the [governmental agency], each cause of action must have been reflected in a timely claim. (Fall River Joint Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 431, 434.)

Related Law

Constitutional Rights of Students

California Constitution, Article 1, Section 28(c) also creates no mandatory duty. The statute provides that “students… have the inalienable right to attend campuses which are safe, secure, and peaceful.” It has been held that even though the constitutional provision creates rights for students, but does not impose a duty on the public agency to guarantee the safety of the schools. (Clausing v. San Francisco Unified School District (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1224, 1237–1238.)

Premising Liability

The Supreme Court rejected premising liability on Education Code § 44808, which provides for liability when a school district specifically assumes responsibility or liability for the conduct or safety of a student when not on school property. The Court found that the school, which never supervised the lot at the end of the day, had not specifically assumed responsibility for the student’s off-campus conduct coming out of the parking lot merely because the district provided supervision at another parking lot. (Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School District (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 940.)

Moral Conditions

California Administrative Code Title 5, § 5530 provides that teachers are to exercise careful supervision of the moral conditions in the school and hold pupils accountable for any deviations.