In Vallejo City Unified School District v. Superior Court (Caguin), ordered published January 27, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 4 issued a writ directing a trial court to grant a motion for summary judgment/summary adjudication in part. A sixth-grade student had conflicts with other students. The student reached out to her teacher via e-mail after school hours and wroteshe had suicidal thoughts. School personnel discussed the student by telephone with her mother. When the student returned to school after taking a day off, the school’s mental health provider examined her and determined she was not at high risk for suicide. The teacher and student communicated further by e-mail about the student’s problems with other students during evenings, and the professional again examined the student. The teacher checked in with the student via e-mail right before or during winter break. During the winter break, while at home with her father, the student committed suicide. Her parents sued the district for the student’s bullying and death, alleging causes of action for wrongful death and survival damages. The school moved for summary judgment/summary adjudication. it argued it was immune from liability for the suicide under Education Code section 44808. The trial court denied summary judgment, because the primary basis for liability was the district’s alleged negligence on campus in dealing with the student, and because the immunity did not apply to the survival claim for pre-death emotional distress due to bullying on campus.
The appellate court disagreed with the trial court as to the suicide cause of action. Education Code section 44808 generally provides school districts and personnel have no responsibility for the conduct or safety fof pupils when they are not on school property. It excludes situations where the district or personnel has undertaken to provide transportation for the pupil, undertaken a school-sponsored activity off premises, “has otherwise specifically assumed such responsibility or liability or has failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.” The court followed its precedent holding that the exception for failing to exercise reasonable care applied only to conduct during one of the statute’s specified undertakings. It reasoned that dictum in Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District (1978) 22 Cal.3d 50 appearing to state that there was no immunity whenever the district failed to exercise reasonable care, did not establish otherwise, since, if taken literally, it would eliminate the immunity entirely. The court rejected the argument that the school district or personnel assumed responsibility for the decedent’s safety off-campus by communicating with her after school hours. Because the suicide took place off campus, the district was immune. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of summary adjudication as to the survival claim, since that arose out of conduct and injury on-campus.
Leave a Reply