In M.T. v. Pajero Valley Unified School District, ordered published November 2, 2026, the Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the defendant district. The plaintiff alleged that a teacher at an elementary school in the district sexually abused him in August 1997, when the plaintiff was a teenager. The plaintiff was a student within the district, but had never been a student of the school where the teacher taught. The plaintiff’s friend introduced the plaintiff to the teacher and accompanied him to the teacher’s home on two occasions during the summer. On one occasion, the two boys attended a party with other students at the house, where they drank alcohol and smoked marijuana. On the other occasion, the boys and other friends spent the night at the teacher’s home. On that occasion, the teacher sexually assaulted the plaintiff. The teacher had been sexually abusing the plaintiff’s friend for a longer period of time. Soon after the plaintiff’s visits to the teacher’s house, the teacher was arrested and pleaded guilty to victimizing boys in the District. In 2022, the plaintiff sued the district, alleging negligence under Government Code sections 815.2 and 820 and breach of a mandatory duty. The trial court granted the district summary judgment, finding there was no special relationship between the plaintiff and the district, and that the district was immune from liability under Education Code section 44808.
The appellate court agreed. There was no special relationship between the plaintiff and the district creating a duty of care toward the plaintiff. The plaintiff was never the teacher’s student, or a student at the teacher’s school; met the teacher outside of school through his friend; and had his two encounters with her at her home, when school was not in session. There was no mandatory school attendance, no comprehensive control over students exercised by school personnel, and therefore no reason to expect the district’s protection under these circumstances. That the plaintiff was a student of the district, lived close to the teacher’s school, had a sister who attended the school, and was known to frequent the school’s campus had no bearing on the existence of a special relationship. A special relationship between a school district and a student arises from the mandatory character of school attendance and the comprehensive control over students exercised by school personnel. A special relationship arises from the interrelated factors of dependence and control, neither of which was present under these circumstances. Any deceptive representations by the teacher to the plaintiff’s mother as to the reasons for the visit are irrelevant to whether the district had a special relationship with the plaintiff. The trial court also correctly ruled that the district was immune from liability under Education Code section 44808. The plaintiff alleged that section 44808 does not apply, because he alleged that the district’s negligence on campus in hiring, supervising, and retaining the teacher caused his injury off-campus. Cases finding the immunity not applicable due to on-campus negligence involve distinguishable facts. To hold the immunity does not apply under the circumstances of this case, where the injuries occurred away from school premises and had no connection with anything that occurred on school premises, would be directly inconsistent with section 44808’s language. The plaintiff offered no argument in opposition to summary judgment on the mandatory-duty cause of action, or in his opening brief, and therefore forfeited any appeal as to summary adjudication of that cause of action.
Leave a Reply