In Rancho Cucamonga v. Superior Court (Flowers), ordered published December 3, 2025, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 2 issued a writ reversing a trial court’s denial of summary adjudication of a cause of action. The plaintiff alleged that when he was a minor the director of his school’s childcare program sexually abused him. The childcare program was operated by a third party on the plaintiff’s school’s campus. The plaintiff sued multiple defendants including the school district. He asserted multiple causes of action, including negligent supervision/failure to warn, which alleged negligent supervision of the program director. The district moved for summary judgment and summary adjudication. The trial court granted summary adjudication as to some causes of action, but denied it as to the negligent supervision cause of action.
The appellate court ruled that the district was entitled to summary adjudication of the negligent supervision cause of action. Under C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School Dist. (2012) 53 Cal.4th 861, a school district is liable for the negligence of supervisory employees who knew or should have known of a school employee’s dangerous propensities, but nevertheless hired, retained, and failed to properly supervise the employee. Here, there was no evidence that district employees had either actual or constructive knowledge of the program director’s propensities. No district employee witnessed any of the alleged sexual assaults or inappropriate behavior. The plaintiff did not report them to anyone while he was at school. There was no evidence any district employee observed anything that reasonably should have triggered suspicion of abuse. There was therefore no inference of constructive knowledge. The court rejected the argument that the standard for negligent failure to supervise students–either a total lack of supervision or ineffective supervision–applied to negligent supervision of a non-student.
Leave a Reply