Page 1
C.A. Takes Expansive View of School District’s Liability
Justice Segal Says Duty to Protect Students From Sexual Assault Could Extend to Situation Where
Teacher Had No History of Misconduct and Dangerous Propensities Were Not Suspected
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A school district might be liable for the sexual abuse of a student by a teacher even if it was oblivious to any dangers posed by that employee, the Court of Appeal for this district has held.
“We conclude, consistent with California negligence law, that school administrators have a duty to protect students from sexual abuse by school employees, even if the school does not have actual knowledge of a particular employee’s history of committing, or propensity to commit, such abuse,” Justice John L. Segal of Div. Seven said in an opinion filed Tuesday.
The opinion reverses a summary judgment awarded by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Deirdre Hill to the Lawndale Elementary School District in an action brought by “Jane Doe” who, as a teenager, was sexually abused by then-music teacher Jason Farr from Aug. 1, 2016, to Feb. 12, 2017. The action was brought on Dec. 13, 2017, by which time the plaintiff was 15.
Segal’s opinion instructs the Superior Court to reinstate Doe’s cause of action for negligence, but to grant summary adjudication to the district on the cause of action under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act for failing to report Farr. It could not report something it did not know about, the justice said.
Hill’s View
In finding a lack of liability on the part of the district for negligent hiring, Hill said in a Jan. 22, 2020 order:
“Here, the court finds that defendant has met its burden of showing that plaintiff cannot establish that defendant had any knowledge that Farr had a propensity or tendency toward sexual misconduct with a minor when it hired Farr. Farr’s personnel records indicate that he was subject to and passed a thorough background check prior to being hired by the District. Farr submitted to FBI fingerprint clearance screening procedures, provided background references, and was required to complete a safety training program. Fair had no criminal history….
Addressing the allegation of negligent supervision, the judge said:
“Defendant asserts that it did not have knowledge of plaintiff and Fan’s sexual relationship or of any improper sexual conduct by Farr prior to his arrest. In his entire eight-year history with the District, there was never a complaint made against him from any parent, student, teacher, or staff member regarding his job performance or his interactions with students. Plaintiff never reported her relationship with Farr to anyone within the District. Defendant argues that a ‘rumor is exactly the type of ambiguous situation that cannot be used in hindsight to find notice on the part of the District.’ There is no evidence that anyone witnessed an overt sexual act….
“Plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of material fact that defendant’s employees knew or reasonably should have known that Farr presented a threat of sexually abusing plaintiff.”
Segal’s Opinion
Rejecting Hill’s reasoning, Segal declared:
“…Doe’s description of the District’s duty—specifically, its administrators’ duty to take reasonable measures to protect her—is correct. The District’s proposed limitations on that duty, which the trial court appeared to rely on in granting the District’s motion for summary judgment, are unsupported by the applicable law.”
He explained:
“The District properly concedes it had a special relationship with Doe….Thus, the District’s administrators had a duty to use reasonable measures to protect Doe from foreseeable injury caused by Farr’s intentional conduct.”
In determining the extent of such a duty, Segal said, a court must weigh the various factors enumerated by the California Supreme Court in the 1968 case of Rowland v. Christian. There, the court said the major factors to be considered are “the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.”
Segal declared: “[T]he Rowland factors do not weigh in favor of limiting school administrators’ duty to prevent sexual abuse to circumstances where administrators know a specific instructor previously engaged in sexual misconduct and where the misconduct is not ‘ambiguous.’ Whether the measures the District took to prevent sexual abuse of students and to supervise Farr and Doe were reasonable is a case-specific question of breach….And it is a question for the jury, not the court on summary judgment.”
The case is Doe v. Lawndale Elementary School District, 2021 S.O.S. 6412.
Holly N. Boyer, Shea S. Murphy, and Kevin K. Nguyen of Esner, Chang & Boyer joined with David M. Ring and Brendan P. Gilbert of Taylor & Ring in representing Doe. Susan L. Oliver, Raymond K. Wilson Jr., and Emily S. Berman of Tyson & Mendes acted for the school district.
Farr was initially included as a defendant in Doe’s action but was dismissed by the plaintiff on Feb. 11, 2020. Arrested March 14, 2017 and was charged with seven felonies, he wound up pleading guilty to one count of oral copulation of a person under the age of 16 and was sentenced to 16 months in prison.
Copyright 2021, Metropolitan News Company