What is a Duty to Supervise Conduct of Pupils?

Useful Rulings on Duty to Supervise Conduct of Pupils

Recent Rulings on Duty to Supervise Conduct of Pupils

A. G. VS VAUGHN NEXT CENTURY LEARNING CENTER, A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s citation to Education Code 44807 does not support imposing liability against Defendant under Government Code 815.6 because it has been held that Education Code 44807 only requires teachers to hold students to a strict account for their conduct, but does not purport to impose a mandatory duty more broadly on any public entity. See Hoff (1998) 19 C4th 925, 939-940.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

ALAN EMMANUEL EMMANUEL LOPEZ TORRES VS ALHAMBRA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Negligent Supervision of Students Under Education Code section 44807, “Every teacher in the public schools shall hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during recess.” (Ed. Code, § 44807.) This statute imposes a duty to supervise students on school districts, and “a student may recover for injuries proximately caused by a breach of this duty to supervise.” (M. W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 508, 518.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SILVA V. VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

With respect to the theories advanced under Labor Code §§ 132a and 1102.5, Education Code, §44807 and Article 1 Section 28 of the California Constitution, the demurrer is granted without leave to amend. With respect to the theory of violation of the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act (Educ.

  • Hearing

    Jan 31, 2020

ALANAH STONE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

DISCUSSION Plaintiffs asserts a claim for negligence based on Education Code section 44807. Under Education Code section 44807, “Every teacher in the public schools shall hold pupils to a strict account for their conduct on the way to and from school, on the playgrounds, or during recess.” (Ed. Code, § 44807.) This statute imposes a duty to supervise students on school districts, and “a student may recover for injuries proximately caused by a breach of this duty to supervise.” (M. W. v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2019

KM VS VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The remainder of the motion to strike is denied without prejudice to defendant's right to raise Education Code §44808 as a substantive defense later in the litigation. A motion to strike should be used cautiously and sparingly, and it should not be used as "a procedural 'line item veto' for the civil defendant." (PH II, Inc. v Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1680, 1683.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2019

JANE DOE VS SIMI VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST

Code sections 44807 and 44808 as well as CCR title 5, section 14103, SVUSD persuasively argues that those enactments do not impose a mandatory duty because they allow for the exercise of discretion. Moving party to give notice of this Court's ruling.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2019

COOK VS SAN MARCOS UNIFIED

The School also relies upon Education Code § 44808, which reads as follows: 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

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COOK VS SAN MARCOS UNIFIED

The School also relies upon Education Code § 44808, which reads as follows: 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

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COOK VS SAN MARCOS UNIFIED

The School also relies upon Education Code § 44808, which reads as follows: 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

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

COOK VS SAN MARCOS UNIFIED

The School also relies upon Education Code § 44808, which reads as follows: 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

  • Hearing

    Oct 03, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

DOE VS CORONA-NORCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

While the decision to undertake a school-sponsored activity is discretionary, Education Code section 44808 sets forth a mandatory duty that applies once the district decides to undertake the activity. District cites to no authority that Plaintiff cannot base a negligence per se claim on Education Code section 44808. District’s argues that the section creates no private right of action. District cites no authority to support this assertion, except Clausing v.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2019

ALAI VS. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Code § 44807] - Negligent Misrepresentation a. Mr. Alai's Claims Mr. Alai appears as a plaintiff for the first time in the FAC, not having been named as a party plaintiff in the original complaint. There has been no motion brought pursuant to CCP §473(a)(1) to add Mr. Alai to this action, and the court's previous order sustaining defendant City of San Diego's ("City") demurrer with leave to amend did not include leave to add a new party.

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ISABELLA RODRIGUEZ VS PARAMOUNT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Roseville City School Dist. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 594, 607 elaborated further on the Court’s ruling in Lilley with regards to section 44807’s impact on the doctrine of the assumption of risk.

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

ZERENITY GARNER VS. NICHOLAS MORGAN

Although the case law interpreting §44808 has not been entirely consistent, the most thorough analysis of §44808 and the case law interpreting it appears to have been performed by the 1st District Court of Appeal in Cerna v. City of Oakland which is quoted at length: "Plaintiffs' argument that section 44808 imposes a form of general negligence liability upon school districts is founded upon the first judicial interpretation of the statute in 1978 by a sharply divided California Supreme Court.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2019

ZERENITY GARNER VS. NICHOLAS MORGAN

Although the case law interpreting §44808 has not been entirely consistent, the most thorough analysis of §44808 and the case law interpreting it appears to have been performed by the 1st District Court of Appeal in Cerna v. City of Oakland which is quoted at length: "Plaintiffs' argument that section 44808 imposes a form of general negligence liability upon school districts is founded upon the first judicial interpretation of the statute in 1978 by a sharply divided California Supreme Court.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2019

ZERENITY GARNER VS. NICHOLAS MORGAN

Although the case law interpreting §44808 has not been entirely consistent, the most thorough analysis of §44808 and the case law interpreting it appears to have been performed by the 1st District Court of Appeal in Cerna v. City of Oakland which is quoted at length: "Plaintiffs' argument that section 44808 imposes a form of general negligence liability upon school districts is founded upon the first judicial interpretation of the statute in 1978 by a sharply divided California Supreme Court.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2019

IVAN GONZALEZ VS CENTINELA VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

Code § 44807; 5 C.C.R. § 5552); (2) Violation of Mandatory Statutory Duty – Dangerous Condition of Public Property (Gov. Code § 835); and (3) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (Gov. Code § 815.6). Defendant seeks leave to file a cross-complaint against third party, Siupelitaliai Fifita, Plaintiff’s alleged attacker, and Roes 1 through 50 for equitable indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHEESMAN V. FAIRMONT CHARTER SCH., ET AL.

Education Code section 44807 imposes a duty on teachers and “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.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2019

JAMAR RENEAU VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Code, § 44808 The failure to identify these specific code sections in the pleading is not a fatal defect. Defendant is not contending it lacked notice of the basis for Plaintiff’s claims. The court’s file reflects that Defendant answered the complaint without demurring to it.

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JANE DOE VS SIMI VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST

Code section 44807, Plaintiff fails to allege that there was any violation by a principal, vice principal, teacher, or other "certificated employee" as required by the statute. With respect to the mandatory duties in Ed. Code section 44808 and CCR title 5, section 14103, Plaintiff fails to allege particular facts to show that SVUSD failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care, or that the harm to Plaintiff was foreseeable.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2019

JANE DOE VS SIMI VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST

Code section 44807, Plaintiff fails to allege that there was any violation by a principal, vice principal, teacher, or other "certificated employee" as required by the statute. With respect to the mandatory duties in Ed. Code section 44808 and CCR title 5, section 14103, Plaintiff fails to allege particular facts to show that SVUSD failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care, or that the harm to Plaintiff was foreseeable.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2019

CATERINA LIPERA VS COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE ET

Lipera relies on Education Code sections 44807 and 49001(a), which permit a teacher to hold pupils strictly accountable for their conduct and to use the amount of physical control necessary to maintain order and quell a disturbance threatening physical injury or property damage. Pet. Op. Br. at 12.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JAYVION WASHINGTON VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Then, on June 17, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to file a second amended complaint to add causes of action for: (1) Negligence per se, in violation of California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Section 5552, and California Education Code, section 44807, and (2) Negligence-Dangerous Condition (without citing any statutory authority). The Court denies the motion without prejudice for two independent reasons.

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2019

A G VS COVINA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

This suggests that Defendants are presumed to be liable under Education Code section 44808. Plaintiff also disputes that while Plaintiff made plans to leave campus with Defendant Padilla, the school should have enforced its own policy prohibiting upperclassmen leaving campus in cars with freshmen. (Disputed DSS 5, 11.) Instead, the school allowed Plaintiff and Defendant Padilla to leave campus in Michael’s car. (Id.; PSS 70, 72, 75, 76, 104, 105, 106.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2019

WILSON V. PORTERVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Education Code 44807 states a duty of district employees to supervise students while on school property. Under this statute, the school district has an affirmative duty to take all reasonable steps to protect students. (Rodriguez v. Inglewood Unified School District (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 707, 715; Lucas v. Fresno Unified School District (1993) 14 Cal.App. 4th 866, 872.) Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action for negligence is adequately stated.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2019

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.