Page 1
C.A. Revives Action Against School District for Abuse at Optional Overnight Science Camp
Opinion Rejects View That Waiver of Liability Applicable to ‘Field Trips’ Applies as Matter of Law, Drawing Disagreement in Concurrence Over Reach of Protection
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Sixth District Court of Appeal has resurrected a lawsuit filed by a student against a school district based on allegations of sexual abuse by a counselor during an optional elementary school overnight science camp outing, finding that the trial court improperly found that the body was immune from liability as a matter of law under a statute providing that those attending “field trips” waive all claims for injuries relating to the excursion.
At issue is the interplay between two provisions of the Education Code—§§4408 and 35330(d). Sec. 4408 specifies that “no school district…shall be…in any way liable for the…safety of any pupil…at any time when such pupil is not on school property” unless it has “undertaken a school-sponsored activity off the premises of such school, has otherwise specifically assumed such responsibility…or has failed to exercise reasonable care.”
Sec. 35330(d) deals specifically with educational outings, providing:
“All persons making the field trip or excursion shall be deemed to have waived all claims against the district…for injury, accident, illness, or death occurring during or by reason of the field trip or excursion.”
Relying on the 1976 decision by Div. Five of this district’s Court of Appeal in Castro v. Los Angeles Board of Education, the court declared that the case stands for the proposition that “the hallmark of a field trip or excursion under section 35330 is that its observational or recreational purpose represents a departure from a school’s curriculum and required school purposes.”
Part of Curriculum
Justice Cynthia C. Lie wrote Friday’s opinion, finding that the Legislature in 1951 authorized districts to “[c]onduct programs…in outdoor science education” outside of the schoolhouse doors. Based on that authorization, she opined that the camp experience was part of the school’s curriculum, even if attendance was voluntary.
Presiding Justice Mary J. Greenwood joined in the opinion. Justice Charles Edward Wilson concurred in the result but wrote separately, disagreeing with the majority’s reading of Castro, saying that “the court’s holding was predicated on the voluntary or involuntary nature of the activity.”
However, Wilson added:
“I would not decide whether the school district carried its burden on summary judgment of establishing as a matter of law that [the camp] constituted a ‘field trip or excursion’ within the meaning of section 35330….Instead, I would hold that….the school district failed to carry its initial burden on summary judgment of demonstrating that Doe’s negligence claim was ‘deemed waived’ as a matter of law.”
Science Camp
The question arose after a minor, identified as “Jane MC Doe,” attended the Walden West Outdoor Science School operated by the Santa Clara County Office of Education (“SCCOE”) during her fifth-grade year in 2013. She says that a SCCOE employee, Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla, repeatedly sexually assaulted her after she was sent to his care for talking in her sleep and waking the other children in her cabin.
She alleges that the Mount Pleasant Elementary School District should have known that Covarrubias-Padilla was under investigation for child pornography charges and had faced previous allegations of sexual abuse.
After Doe sued the district, through her mother as guardian ad litem, for negligence in 2020, Mount Pleasant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune from liability under §§4408 and 35330(d). Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Evette D. Pennypacker granted the request, finding that §35330(d) bars the action.
Friday’s opinion reversed the ensuing judgment.
Vicariously Liable
Lie wrote:
“A school district…is vicariously liable for harms proximately caused by the negligence of its employees acting in the scope of employment…..As a general rule, this liability for student welfare does not extend beyond the school grounds….But when the district undertakes certain activities off school grounds…, it may be liable or responsible for student safety if the student ‘is or should be under the immediate and direct supervision’ of a district employee….And among such school-sponsored undertakings, students participating in ‘field trips or excursions’ are also ‘deemed to have waived all claims against the district….’ ”
Noting that the terms “field trip” and “excursion” could be “susceptible to a broader definition,” she pointed to the Legislature having specifically authorized off-campus, outdoor science education prior to the enactment of §35330(d). Based on this history, she opined:
“Although the Legislature could have deemed participants in outdoor science education to have waived all claims just as it would for field trips and excursions, it did not and has not….[W]e view as significant the absence of a deemed waiver in the context of outdoor science education. We also note that in nearly a half century since Castro announced its rule, the Legislature has taken no action to override it. Though not dispositive of the legislative intent…, this apparent legislative acquiescence affords us no reason to question Castro’s ‘required school purposes’ standard here.”
Selective Reliance
Saying that the district “selectively relies on Castro,” noting that the court said that “the voluntary nature of the event absolves the district of liability,” she concluded:
“But in distinguishing voluntary from mandatory activities, the focus…was on whether the activity served a ‘required school purpose[],’ not whether the district could compel participation in an off-premises activity as the sole means of satisfying that required purpose….The voluntary choice to attend Walden West for a program in outdoor science education…does not make attending Walden West a field trip or excursion subject to section 35330[]….”
As to §44808, she said that “[i]t is beyond dispute that the district…relied on SCCOE to provide Doe’s…supervision overnight while district teachers were sleeping but on call,” but opined that “the…contractual division of labor…did not negate the existence of any duty” of care relating to Doe.
No Categorical Bar
She remarked that the court does not read the section as “categorically precluding the district from delegating immediate and direct supervision to SCCOE without independently investigating SCCOE’s recruitment, training, and supervision of SCCOE employees and volunteers,” but said:
“[T]he district’s burden in seeking summary judgment based on section 44808 immunity was to demonstrate not only that Doe was not under the immediate and direct supervision of district employees when she was harmed but that, given the totality of the circumstances, no district employees owed Doe their immediate and direct supervision.”
Applying that framework, Lie commented that the district failed to challenge Doe’s allegations that Covarrubias-Padilla was “known to be a danger to children” and declared that “we decline to rule that a district may withhold immediate and direct supervision during school-sponsored off-premises activity in the face of known threats to its students’ safety.”
The jurist continued:
“We acknowledge the practical reality that any chink in public entity immunity may invite claims….But…we read statutory authorities as we find them….[O]utdoor science education predates…the inception of the immunities on which the district would rely; nothing prevents the Legislature from again taking action to enlarge the scope of those limitations on district liability.”
Wilson’s View
Wilson noted that §35330 deals in terms of waiver and not immunity from liability, and wrote that “I would conclude that….the Legislature intended to limit the liability of school districts to a lesser degree—one that does not include claims for gross negligence or intentional torts” and that “the school district failed to carry its initial burden of demonstrating that Doe’s negligence claim was ‘deemed waived’ as a matter of law.”
Saying that “[a]lthough I would not decide the question of whether Walden West constituted a field trip or excursion within the meaning of section 35330,” he declined to join in the majority’s analysis. Wilson argued that “Castro made only passing reference to curriculum at the end of the opinion in dicta” and that “the court’s holding was predicated on the voluntary or involuntary nature of the activity.”
He added:
“I do not think the Legislature’s failure to act in response to Castro or its progeny can be read as acquiescence, let alone approval, of its holdings….
“I conclude that any determination that absolute immunity exists under section 35330, subdivision (d), should expressly come from the Legislature.”
The case is Doe v. Mount Pleasant Elementary School District, 2025 S.O.S. 2305.
In 2017, Covarrubias-Padilla pled guilty to sexually molesting two campers and possessing as many as 20,000 pieces of child pornography. He is serving 18 years in prison relating to the charges.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company