Court of Appeal Permits Lawsuit Against School District When Unsupervised Student is Injured in Classroom (K-12) - School & College Legal Services of California

On May 19, 2016, the Court of Appeal in Sacramento published its decision in Uriel Jimenez v. Roseville City School District, holding that under two different legal theories, the District could potentially be liable to a student who was injured when he was left unsupervised with a group of fellow students in a classroom. The court reversed a decision by the superior court dismissing the case and sent it back to let the case proceed to trial.

LEGAL UPDATE

June 7, 2016

To: Superintendents, Member School Districts (K-12)

From: Frank Zotter, Jr., Senior Associate General Counsel

Subject: Court of Appeal Permits Lawsuit Against School District When Unsupervised Student is Injured in Classroom

Memo No. 18-2016

On May 19, 2016, the Court of Appeal in Sacramento published its decision in Uriel Jimenez v. Roseville City School District, holding that under two different legal theories, the District could potentially be liable to a student who was injured when he was left unsupervised with a group of fellow students in a classroom. The court reversed a decision by the superior court dismissing the case and sent it back to let the case proceed to trial.

Several students at the District had been observed break dancing before school. Alan Hall, a District teacher, gave the students a place to practice the break dancing so that they could participate in a talent show. The students thereafter began practicing in Hall’s classroom before school.

In addition to break dancing by spinning and the like, school officials had witnessed students doing flips as part of this activity, which usually consisted of one student helping another student to flip. The evidence was somewhat in conflict, with some students claiming that no one had told them not to flip as part of their break dancing moves. The Assistant Principal testified that while he did not know what was going on in Hall’s classroom, he had observed the boys doing flips out of doors and had told them that he didn’t want them to flip during break dancing.

Hall testified that he had not told the principal or vice principal about the break dancing practices going on in his classroom. He occasionally would leave the classroom while the students were engaged in the practicing to make copies, use the bathroom, or make a telephone call. On the date in question, he left the classroom for a few minutes, and while he was gone, Jimenez, who was 14, was flipped by a fellow student and seriously injured.

The court of appeal explained that the case was about “a teacher [who] broke school rules and allowed middle-school students to engage in potentially risky activity, break dancing, in his classroom without supervision.” The court also noted that there was evidence that when the assistant principal observed the students flipping or trying to flip one another while break dancing, he had told them that they were forbidden to flip at school.

In addition to holding that the District could potentially be liable for negligence in its failure to supervise the students, therefore, the court also found that even if the District’s supervision was not negligent, the District was still potentially liable because it actually increased the risk of harm to the students. The court engaged in a lengthy discussion about whether flipping was part of break dancing, and making the assumption that it was not, the District failed to take adequate steps to enforce its “no flip” policy, and that this failure increased the risks inherent in ordinary break dancing.

Implications for Districts

This decision reiterates a well-established principle that, at all time while students are present on school grounds, school authorities have a duty to supervise their behavior and to enforce rules and regulations for the students’ safety. The court emphasized that “we do not want to allow children—particularly [less mature] children—to congregate in unsupervised classrooms to engage in physical activities that can easily spiral into dangerous activities.” The court then cited “the known proclivities of children to engage in horseplay, etc.” If Mr. Hall had to leave the classroom, he should have told the children to stop all activities until he returned. His failure to notify his superiors of the activity at all, and to direct the children to stop all activity in his absence, reflected a failure of proper training by the District.

Districts generally have some protection if students are injured in activities such as wrestling, baseball, or football that have some inherent risks. But those activities are usually closely monitored, and an injury that occurs from simply engaging in such activities normally will not lead to liability. In this case, by contrast, Mr. Hall acknowledged that he had no formal training in break dancing, little personal experience in it, and did not enforce the school’s policy against flipping, which the court concluded was not an “inherent” part of the activity. Thus, if students are to be permitted to engage in athletic activities on school grounds, it should only be under the supervision of trained personnel and they should be supervised when engaged in less-structured activity, such as lunch-time play.

Please contact our office with questions regarding this Legal Update or any other legal matter.

The information in this Legal Update is provided as a summary of law and is not intended as legal advice. Application of the law may vary depending on the particular facts and circumstances at issue. We, therefore, recommend that you consult legal counsel to advise you on how the law applies to your specific situation.

Contact SCLS