McLeod v. Grant County School Dist. No. 128

• Decision Date: 25 March 1953
• Docket Number: No. 32104,32104
• Citation: 255 P.2d 360,42 Wn.2d 316
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: McLEOD, v. GRANT COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. NO. 128.

Page 316

42 Wn.2d 316

255 P.2d 360

McLEOD, v. GRANT COUNTY SCHOOL DIST. NO. 128.

No. 32104.

Supreme Court of Washington, en Banc.

March 25, 1953.

Ned W. Kimball, Waterville, C. M. Clark, Coulee City, for appellant.

Witherspoon, Witherspoon & Kelley, Spokane, Robert S. Campbell, Jr., Ephrata, for respondent.

HAMLEY, Justice.

This action was brought on behalf of a twelve-year-old school girl, to recover damages in the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars from defendant school district, resulting from plaintiff's forcible rape by fellow students during a noon recess in the school gymnasium.

The trial court sustained demurrers to the complaint and amended complaint. Plaintiff declined to plead further, and judgment was accordingly entered for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. The only question before us is whether the amended complaint states a cause of action.

The facts alleged in the amended complaint, and admitted for the purposes of the demurrer, are as follows: Defendant maintains and operates a public school building, including a gymnasium, at Hartline, in Grant county, Washington. There is a grandstand along one side of the playing floor of the gymnasium. Under this grandstand there is a long, dark room. The only opening into this room is by an unlocked wooden door. The children attending the school are permitted to play in the gymnasium during the noon recess. Defendant had appointed one of its teachers to supervise the activities of the students while they were occupying the gymnasium, for the purpose of protecting any student from being harmed by other students.

On January 29, 1951, which was a regular school day, the teacher appointed to supervise activities in the gymnasium during the noon recess absented himself, and the school children were without supervision. At that time plaintiff, who is a regularly enrolled student at the school, was playing with other children in the gymnasium. During this noon recess, several school boys, ranging in age from twelve to sixteen years, carried plaintiff through the doorway into the darkened room under the grandstand, where she was forcibly raped by two of the boys whom plaintiff believed to be fifteen years old. While plaintiff was being carried into this room she cried out for help, but could not gain the attention of any adult. After she was forced into the room she was prevented from making further out-cry.

The amended complaint then contains this further allegation:

'* * * That defendant knew or should have known that acts of indecency do occur when children are not supervised and should have foreseen that the injuries inflicted upon the plaintiff were reasonably likely to occur unless the defendant provided adequate supervision * * *.'

A school district may be sued 'for an injury to the rights of the plaintiff' arising from some act or omission of such district. RCW 4.08.120, Rem.Rev.Stat., § 951. An exception is made where such injury results from the use of athletic apparatus or appliances or manual training equipment. RCW 28.58.030, Rem.Rev.Stat., § 4706. Stovall v. Toppenish School Dist. No. 49, 110 Wash. 97, 188 P. 12, 9 A.L.R. 908; Briscoe v. School Dist. No. 123, 32 Wash.2d 353 201 P.2d 697. Since the noted exception does not here apply, the liability of respondent school district for the alleged tortious acts or omissions of its officers, agents or servants is to be determined according to the normal rules of tort law. Briscoe v. School Dist. No. 123, supra.

The tort here charged is negligence. In order to state a cause of action for negligence, it is necessary to allege facts which would warrant a finding that the defendant has committed an unintentional breach of a legal duty, and that such breach was a proximate cause of the harm. See Ullrich v. Columbia & Cowlitz R. Co., 189 Wash. 668, 66 P.2d 853; Harvey v. Auto Interurban Co., 36 Wash.2d 809, 220 P.2d 890.

The trial court sustained respondent's contention that appellant's complaint and amended complaint failed to state facts which would warrant a finding for appellant as to either negligence or proximate cause. We will first consider the adequacy of the allegations as to negligence.

In order to decide whether respondent committed an unintentional breach of a legal duty, it is first necessary to determine what respondent's legal duty was, under the circumstances. The two factors to be considered in making that determination are, first, the relationship between the parties, and second, the general nature of the risk.

The relationship here in question is that of school district and school child. It is not a voluntary relationship. The child is compelled to attend school. He must yield obedience to school rules and discipline formulated and enforced pursuant to statute. See RCW 9.11.040(4), Rem.Rev.Stat., § 2416(4); RCW 28.58.100, Rem.Supp.1943, § 4776 [part]; RCW 28.67.100, Rem.Rev.Stat., § 4854; RCW 43.63.140(6), Rem.Rev.Stat. (Sup.) § 4529(6). The result is that the protective custody of teachers is mandatorily substituted for that of the parent.

The duty which this relationship places upon the school district has been stated in the Briscoe case, supra, as follows:

'As a correlative of this right on the part of a school district to enforce, as against the pupils, rules and regulations prescribed by the state board of education and the superintendent of public instruction, a duty is imposed by law on the school district to take certain precautions to protect the pupils in its custody from dangers reasonably to be anticipated * * *.' 32 Wash.2d at page 362, 201 P.2d at page 701.

It will be observed that the duty of a school district, as thus defined, is to anticipate dangers which may reasonably be anticipated, and to then take precautions to protect the pupils in its custody from such dangers. Under the facts alleged, would the jury be warranted in finding that the danger which here confronted appellant was reasonably to be anticipated?

The harm which came to appellant was not caused by the direct act or omission of the school district, but by the intervening act of third persons. The fact that the danger stems from such an intervening act, however, does not of itself exonerate a defendant from negligence. If, under the assumed facts, such intervening force is reasonably foreseeable, a finding of negligence may be predicated thereon. Berglund v. Spokane County, 4 Wash.2d 309, 103 P.2d 355; Prosser on Torts 354, § 49.

This principle has special application in cases, such as the one before us, where the defendant has custody of the plaintiff. In Briscoe v. School Dist. No. 123, supra, we noted and applied § 320 of Restatement of Torts, which reads as follows:

'One who is required by law to take or who voluntarily takes the custody of another under circumstances such as to deprive the other of his normal power of self-protection or to subject him to association with persons likely to harm him, is under a duty of exercising reasonable care so to control the conduct of third persons as to prevent them from intentionally harming the other or so conducting themselves as to create an unreasonable risk of harm to him, if the actor

'(a) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control the conduct of the third persons, and

'(b) knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control.' 2 Restatement, Torts, 867, § 320.

Counsel for respondent do not appear to take a different view of the law up to this point in our analysis. They point out, however, that the particular intervening act in question was a crime--forcible rape. They contend, in addition, that the complaint alleges no facts which would warrant the conclusion that such an intervening criminal act was reasonably foreseeable. Our attention is called to the fact that there are no allegations that the two boys alleged to have raped appellant had known vicious propensities. It is further asserted, as a matter of common knowledge of which we should take notice, that grade school children of both sexes play together without supervision and without resulting acts of rape.

Whether or not an intervening act is criminal in nature is a fact to be considered in determining whether such act was reasonably foreseeable. But intervening criminal acts may be found to be foreseeable, and if so found, actionable negligence may be predicated thereon. Whitehead v. Stringer, 106 Wash. 501, 180 P. 486, 5 A.L.R. 358; Prosser on Torts, 357, § 49; Harper, Laws of Torts, 275, § 124; 2 Restatement, Torts, 1199, § 448. In Hines v. Garrett, 131 Va. 125, 108 S.E. 690, and Pullman Co. v. Culbreth, 5 Cir., 2 F.2d 540, 42 A.L.R. 164, actionable negligence was based upon what was held to be a foreseeable intervening act of rape.

It seems to us, however, that counsel unjustifiably restrict the issue when they ask us to focus attention upon the specific type of incident which here occurred--forcible rape. Whether foreseeability is being considered from the standpoint of negligence or proximate cause, the pertinent inquiry is not whether the actual harm was of a particular kind which was expectable. Rather, the question is whether the actual harm fell within a general field of danger which should have been anticipated. Berglund v. Spokane County, supra; Harper, Law of Torts, 14, § 7; 2 Restatement, Torts, 1173, § 435. This thought is further developed in the following statement by Professor Harper, which we quoted with approval in the Berglund case [4 Wash.2d 309, 103 P.2d 361]:

'* * * the courts are perfectly accurate in declaring that there can be no liability where the harm is unforeseeable, if 'foreseeability' refers to the general type of harm sustained. It is literally true that there is no liability for damage that falls entirely outside the general threat of harm which made the conduct of the actor negligent.

The sequence of events, of course, need not be foreseeable. The manner in which the risk...