Metropolitan News-Enterprise

 

Wednesday, September 7, 2022

 

Page 1

 

Court of Appeal:

School District Not Liable to Pupils Who Viewed Slayings

Opinion Cites Lack of Foreseeability, Public Policy Concerns

 

By a MetNews Staff Writer

 

A school district is not liable to seven children who witnessed the teacher’s husband entering the classroom, fatally shooting his wife, firing at two students, one of whom died, then killing himself, Div. Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has declared in an opinion it certified for publication yesterday.

The opinion, initially filed on Aug. 10, was authored by Acting Presiding Justice Art W. McKinister. It affirms a summary judgment granted by San Bernardino Superior Court Judge Lynn M. Poncin in favor of the San Bernardino City Unified School District and Yadira Downing, who was principal at North Park Elementary School when the incident took place there on April 10, 2017.

 Suit was brought on Dec. 21, 2017 by Carter Ison, then 11, and six classmates, each through a guardian ad litem. They contended in their complaint that the incident “was fully preventable,” explaining that the shooter, Cedric Anderson, had displayed violence toward his wife, teacher Karen Smith—threatening to murder her—over a period of weeks or months, asserting:

“[P]ersonnel within the school, including the principal, as well as parents of students within her class, were aware of Ms. SMITH’S erratic behavior inside the classroom. Four days; before, the incident, Cedric Anderson showed up unannounced at the school, and was observed by staff acting inappropriately. Despite these warnings, and despite his efforts to break into the school through a side gate, Cedric Anderson was not only freely permitted to enter the campus, but also into SMITH’S classroom….”

The door between the front office and the classrooms was not kept locked, the plaintiffs pointed out, and there was not even a door to the classroom that could be locked, only a curtain.

McKinister’s Opinion

The various causes of action were narrowed through rulings to negligence and dangerous condition, and Poncin on Sept. 4, 2020 sided with the defendants on those claims. In his opinion upholding the summary judgment, McKinister said, as to the alleged negligence, that while the defendants did have a “special relationship” creating a duty to guard against harm, there was a lack of foreseeability of any danger posed by Anderson.

He wrote:

“[P]laintiffs have produced no evidence that defendants had actual knowledge that Anderson posed a risk of harm to Smith or anyone at the school. Quite the contrary, Anderson had previously visited the school without incident, and Smith never expressed any concern to family or defendants about his potential for violence or her safety. Rather, Smith told her daughter that she was not afraid of Anderson, and Smith’s daughter testified that she never observed any injuries on Smith, never witnessed Anderson become violent with her, and never suspected that he may be abusive. Notably, Smith’s coworkers were unaware that Smith was estranged from her husband. In short, plaintiffs presented no evidence that any district employee—including Smith herself—could have foreseen that Anderson was a danger to the safety of the school.”

Public Policy

McKinister went on to say:

“Public policy factors counsel against imposing a duty on school districts to ensure that students are safe from third party criminal conduct of known visitors—including teachers’ spouses, and students’ parents and family members….The extent of the burden to shoulder such a duty and the consequences to school personnel would be extremely heavy. Districts would become the insurers of the safety of students in the event of any intentional harm (including from within), even if the districts have no reason to expect it. This is an unrealistic responsibility.”

The facts that the door between the front office and the classrooms was unlocked did not mean there was a dangerous condition on the premises, the jurist said, because Anderson was recognized as the husband of a teacher, and was therefore plaintiffs regarded as a “trusted visitor” who would be accorded unrestricted access.

“Even if that door had been locked,” McKinister said, “the receptionist would have unlocked it and permitted Anderson to proceed to Smith’s classroom.”

He continued:

“Likewise, a lockable door on Smith’s classroom would not have affected the risk of harm since Smith was unaware that Anderson posed a threat to her safety. Even if Smith’s classroom had a door, and that door was locked, there is no evidence that she would have refused to open the door to him.”

The case is C.I. v. San Bernardino City Unified School District, 2022 S.O.S. 4260.

The plaintiffs also sued Smith’s estate, alleging:

“Despite knowing that Anderson posed a threat of violence and that North Park Elementary School was the one place he could predictably find her, SMITH repeatedly failed to notify school personnel at the entrance of the campus and/or school police or take any protective measures to prevent Anderson from accessing her classroom.”

Poncin granted summary judgment to the estate, finding that Smith lacked any such duty, and that judgment, entered Nov. 14, 2019, was not appealed.

The parents of Jonathan Martinez, 8, who was slain by Anderson, also sued the school district and Downing, but that case was dismissed with prejudice on Oct. 29, 2019.

 

Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company