In Victor Valley Union High School Dist. v. Superior Court (Magistrale), published July 13, 2026, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 2 declined to issue a writ reversing denial of summary judgment. The plaintiff, then a 15-year-old student, participated in ROTC at her high school. A teacher, the ROTC assistant commandant, offered to drive the plaintiff to a location where the student would meet her mother or sister. The student agreed. When leaving campus, the teacher and student walked out through the office, said goodbye to the “office lady,” and went to the parking lot. The teacher took the student to his residence, gave her liquor, and sexually assaulted her. On two other occasions in the next two years, the teacher gave the student liquor off-campus and sexually assaulted her. The teacher was criminally convicted, and the student sued the school district for negligence in supervising and protecting her. The school district moved for summary judgment on the ground that because the sexual assaults took place off-campus, it was immune from liability under Education Code section 44808. The trial court denied summary judgment, on the ground that the evidence the teacher walked through the school with the student, encountered another employee, then left the campus with the student in his own vehicle raised a triable issue of fact on whether the district negligently supervised the student while she was on campus or being instructed by or interacting with the teacher.
The appellate court agreed. Education Code section 44808 immunizes school districts from liability for the safety of school pupils when not on school property, unless the district has undertaken to provide transportation to and from school premises, has undertaken a school-sponsored activity off premises, has specifically assumed such responsibility or liability, “or has failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.” In Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School Dist. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 580, the California Supreme Court ruled that, despite section 44808, a school district could be held liable for an off-campus injury if breach of the duty to supervise pupils while they are on school premises leads to injury off school property. The appellate court interpreted this to mean that section 44808’s application depends upon the location of the alleged negligent act–not the location of the injury. Here, the evidence that school employees may have been aware the teacher was taking the student off-campus in his personal vehicle raised an issue of fact on whether the district was negligent in supervising the student on school premises. In reaching this decision, the appellate court declined to follow its own decisions in Mosley v. San Bernardino City Unified School District (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1260, LeRoy v. Yarboi (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 737, and Vallejo City Unified School District v. Superior Court (2025) 118 Cal.App.5th 139 as incorrectly decided.
A concurring justice further analyzed the text of section 44808 to arrive at the same decision.
Leave a Reply