In Grossman v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, published March 25, 2019, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 7 affirmed summary judgment granted to the defendant school district. The school district permitted a school booster group and the PTA to hold a carnival fundraiser on a school's grounds. During the carnival, an inflatable slide partially deflated and began to tip over while the plaintiff was on it, throwing the plaintiff to the concrete below. The plaintiff alleged that the slide was improperly set up on the grass infield next to concrete, and that it was not tethered to the ground. He alleged that the slide was a dangerous condition of property, and that the district knew or should have known that the slide was not set up, secured, or operated properly. It was undisputed that the district did not own, operate, or set up the slide.
The appellate court rejected the plaintiff's argument that Education Code section 38184 rendered the district liable for the plaintiff's injuries. Subdivision (i)(1) of the statute apportions liability between school districts and nonprofit entities using the school facilities or grounds. Under the statute, a district is liable for an injury resulting from the negligence of the school district in the ownership and maintenance of the school facilities or grounds. An entity using school facilities or grounds under this section is liable for an injury resulting from the negligence of that entity during the use of the school facilities or grounds. Subdivision (i)(2), however, provides that the statute does not limit or affect the immunity or liability of a school district under the Government Claims Act for an injury caused by a dangerous condition of public property. Based on this language, and the Education Code section's legislative history, section 38184 does not affect Government Code section 835's limitations on public entity liability for property conditions. Under section 835, the district was not liable for the slide. The slide was not district property, it was not operated by the district, the conditions the plaintiff complained about did not result from the acts or omissions of district employees, and there was no evidence district employees had actual or constructive notice of the slide.
Comments