In Cleveland v. Taft Union High School District, published March 25, 2022, the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment entered after a jury verdict. A high school student told fellow classmates about a dream he had of shooting multiple students. The school district suspended the student and performed a threat assessment. As part of the threat assessment, the school psychologist interviewed the student. The assistant principal oversaw the threat assessment and interviewed other students about the student. The School Resource Officer searched the student's house for weapons and a "hit list," and did not find anything. The school psychologist prepared a report determining the student could return to school. Students made additional complaints about the student over the succeeding months, and the assistant principal assessed those events. Ten months after making the initial statements, the student brought a shotgun to class and shot the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the school district and its administrators for negligence. The school district asserted that under Government Code section 855.6, which immunizes public entities and employees from liability for inadequate physical and mental examinations made to determine whether a person is a threat to himself or others, it and its employees were immune from liability for making an allegedly inadequate threat assessment. The trial court determined that the immunity applied only to the school psychologist's examination of the student and his conclusions from that examination, and did not apply to the rest of the threat assessment. The jury held the school psychologist, the assistant principal, other administrators, and a school security officer were negligent, and assigned them collectively 54% of the fault for the shooting. The district was held liable for damages. On appeal, the district contended that section 855.6's immunity applies to the entire threat assessment.
The appellate court agreed with the trial court. Analyzing the law and policy concerning administrators' duty of care to protect students, as well as the legislative and case law history of section 855.6, the court concluded that the immunity applies to any public employee, not just medical personnel. But it interpreted the term "mental examination" in the statute to apply only to the process of inspecting visually, or by use of the other senses, the physical, mental, and emotional state of the person examined. Typically, this would involve a face-to-face meeting, although it could also include interviews by telephone or videoconference. The court determined that applying section 855.6 to all negligent acts or omissions of a threat assessment team would undermine the goal of protecting students, rather than encouraging school districts to diligently perform the threat assessment. The court responded to the concern that the threat of liability would dissuade school districts from performing threat assessments by reasoning that the districts' duties to protect their students would incentivize them to continue to perform the assessments. The acts and omissions the plaintiff's expert found in the threat assessment's performance were therefore outside the scope of the immunity.
Pollak, Vida & Barer participated in the appeal.
Comments