Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist.
Citation | 19 Cal.4th 925,968 P.2d 522,80 Cal.Rptr.2d 811 |
Decision Date | 31 December 1998 |
Docket Number | No. S050162,S050162 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
Parties | , 968 P.2d 522, 131 Ed. Law Rep. 513, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 35, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 29 Frederick HOFF et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent |
Michael W. Milward and Bryan M. Hansen, Petaluma, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Bolling, Walter & Gawthrop, Marjorie E. Manning; Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff and Laurence L. Angelo, Sacramento, for Defendant and Respondent.
Farmer & Murphy, Craig E. Farmer and Frank J. Torrano, Rancho Cordova, for Northern California Regional Liaibility Excess Fund Joint Powers Authority, Southern California Regional Liability Excess Fund Joint Powers Authority and Schools Excess Liability Fund as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.
Plaintiff Frederick Hoff (Hoff) suffered serious injuries when a student exiting a high school parking lot jumped the curb with his car and struck Hoff on the sidewalk across the street. We granted review to consider whether Hoff can pursue a negligence claim against the school district based on the breach of a duty to supervise the student. On the facts of this case, we conclude that neither the school district nor any of its employees owed a duty to Hoff, a nonstudent who was not on school property at the time of the accident. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which held to the contrary.
The trial court entered judgment for the Vacaville Unified School District (District) upon granting a motion for nonsuit after opening statement. Accordingly, on review, we accept as true all facts Hoff asserted in his opening statement and indulge every legitimate inference those facts support. (Willis v. Gordon (1978) 20 Cal.3d 629, 633, 143 Cal.Rptr. 723, 574 P.2d 794; Abeyta v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1041, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 680.)
At the end of the last day of the 1991-1992 school year, Jason Lozano, a 16-year-old student at Vacaville High School, lost control of his car as he exited the school's overflow parking lot and struck Hoff. In exiting the lot, Lozano had "floor[ed]" the accelerator, "peeled out" with the wheels "screeching," "fishtailed," and jumped the curb and hit Hoff, who was walking on the sidewalk across the street. Lozano had been driving for six months, had no history of misbehavior, and obeyed his school supervisors. Hoff sustained severe injuries in the accident.
Both the overflow parking lot and the school's main parking lot exited onto West Monte Vista Avenue, a "very busy street." Since the 1980's, school authorities, who knew that young drivers "would burn rubber," "hang out of windows," and "ride on top of cars," had assigned trained employees to direct traffic exiting the main parking lot at the end of the school day. These traffic supervisors could stop traffic on the street to allow students to exit the lot and could suspend students who drove recklessly or revoke their campus parking permits. However, the overflow lot "was never supervised," even though the school had the money and personnel to do so.
Hoff filed suit seeking recovery for his injuries, naming the District as one of the defendants. 1 In a negligence claim against the District, Hoff alleged that the District: (1) "had statutory duties, pursuant to California Education[ ] Code section 44807, to supervise [its] students on the premises of the Vacaville High School, including in the overflow lot and at the exit of the overflow parking lot at the end of the school day"; (2) "had undertaken the duty and responsibility to supervise [its] student drivers on the public street, and had assumed joint control of the public street for that purpose, as they exited the main parking lot at Vacaville High School onto said public street"; (3) "owed a duty of due care to [Hoff] to fulfill [its] statutory duty to supervise [its] students on the campus and [its] assumed duty to supervise students with reasonable care on the public street as they leave the high school premises"; and (4) was "negligent in the performance of [its] statutory duties and in the duties [it] assumed by [its] conduct, pursuant to California Education Code section 44807 and 44808 so as to cause the injuries to" Hoff.
Trial against the District began in September 1996. After Hoff's opening statement, the District moved for nonsuit, arguing that it owed Hoff no duty of care. Although the trial court had previously rejected the same argument in denying a summary judgment motion, it granted the motion for nonsuit, finding that the District owed Hoff no duty of care. The trial court later entered judgment for the District.
The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, finding that the District owed a duty to exercise reasonable care in supervising its students for the protection of both students and nonstudents. We then granted the District's petition for review.
Under the California Tort Claims Act (Gov.Code, § 810 et seq.), 2 (Creason v. Department of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 630-631, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 489, 957 P.2d 1323.) Thus, in California, "all government tort liability must be based on statute [citation]." (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 785, fn. 2, 221 Cal.Rptr. 840, 710 P.2d 907.) " 'In the absence of a constitutional requirement, public entities may be held liable only if a statute ... is found declaring them to be liable.' " (County of Sacramento v. Superior Court (1972) 8 Cal.3d 479, 481, 105 Cal.Rptr. 374, 503 P.2d 1382.)
Section 815.2, subdivision (a), is one such statute. It provides: "A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment if the act or omission would, apart from this section, have given rise to a cause of action against that employee...." Through this section, the California Tort Claims Act expressly makes the doctrine of respondeat superior applicable to public employers. (Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 209, 285 Cal.Rptr. 99, 814 P.2d 1341.) (Thomas v. City of Richmond (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1154, 1157, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 442, 892 P.2d 1185.) Under section 820, subdivision (a), "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute ..., a public employee is liable for injury caused by his act or omission to the same extent as a private person." Thus, "the general rule is that an employee of a public entity is liable for his torts to the same extent as a private person (§ 820, subd. (a)) and the public entity is vicariously liable for any injury which its employee causes (§ 815.2, subd. (a)) to the same extent as a private employer (§ 815, subd. (b))." (Societa per Azioni de Navigazione Italia v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 31 Cal.3d 446, 463, 183 Cal.Rptr. 51, 645 P.2d 102, fn. omitted.)
Through these statutes, (Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 209-210, 285 Cal.Rptr. 99, 814 P.2d 1341.) Under them, "a school district is vicariously liable for injuries proximately caused by [the] negligence" of school personnel "responsible for student supervision." (Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 741, 747, 87 Cal.Rptr. 376, 470 P.2d 360 (Dailey ); see also Castro v. Los Angeles Bd. of Education (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 232, 235, 126 Cal.Rptr. 537 [ ].) Thus, the District's liability under section 815.2 depends on whether school personnel, by failing to supervise Lozano as he exited the overflow parking lot, breached a duty owed Hoff.
To say that someone owes another a duty of care " (Dillon v. Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728, 734, 69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912.) "[L]egal duties are not discoverable facts of nature, but merely conclusory expressions that, in cases of a particular type, liability should be imposed for damage done." (Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 434, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334 (Tarasoff ).)
(Peterson v. San Francisco Community College Dist. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 799, 806, 205 Cal.Rptr. 842, 685 P.2d 1193 (Peterson ).) (Tarasoff, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 435, fn. 5, 131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334.)
In this case, Hoff does not argue that a special relationship exists between himself and school personnel. Rather, emphasizing that "a 'special relationship' need not exist between the defendant (here...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Univ. of S. Cal. v. Superior Court of Cnty. of L. A.
...and no negligent undertaking upon which to base a duty of care without a Rowland analysis]; Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 933–937, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 811, 968 P.2d 522 [held the special relationship between a school district and a student did not create a duty of......
-
Kesner v. Superior Court of Alameda Cnty.
...the lack of relationship between the intervening conduct and the defendant's negligence. (See Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School District (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 936, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 811, 968 P.2d 522 ["school personnel who neither know nor reasonably should know that a particular student has a......
-
Blanco v. Cnty. of Kings
...California Tort Claims Act expressly makes the doctrine of respondeat superior applicable to public employers." 19 Cal.4th 925, 932, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 811, 968 P.2d 522 (1998). Plaintiff alleges that both Cosper and Mixon were acting in their official capacities at the time of the events descr......
-
N.N.V. v. American Ass'n of Blood Banks
...protection." (Adams v. City of Fremont (1998) 68 Cal. App.4th 243, 265, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 196; Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 933, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 811, 968 P.2d 522.) The existence of a duty of care is a question of law to be resolved by the courts. (Quelimane Co.......
-
Opening statement
...opening and draw every reasonable inference from these facts in favor of the plaintiff. Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 925, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 811; Abeyta v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 1037, 1041, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 680. If the opening statement permits no......
-
Governmental tort liability
...the enactment must be applicable to the defendant public entity for liability to be found. Hoff v. Vacaville Unified Sch. Dist ., 19 Cal. 4th 925, 939, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 811 (1998). §2:21e The Enactment Must Be Specifically Pleaded A litigant who seeks to allege a cause of action for breach ......
-
Table of cases
...Hoel v. City of Los Angeles (1995) 136 Cal. App. 2d 295, 288 P.2d 989, §§1:70, 9:130 Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School Dist. (1998) 19 Cal. 4th 925, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 811, §5:60 Hoffman v. Brandt (1966) 65 Cal. 2d 549, 55 Cal. Rptr. 417, §21:140 Hogan, People v. (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 815, 183 Cal......